Board of Supervisors - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Bye. so so

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning. Buenos dias to everyone. Before we begin today's meeting, I want to acknowledge the tragic hate crime assault that took place in San Diego targeting members of the Muslim community. Our hearts are with the victims, their families, and all those impacted by this horrific act of violence and hatred. Los Angeles County stands in solidarity with our Muslim communities and with all people who deserve to live free from fear, discrimination, and intimidation. Hate has no place in our region, our state, or in our country. Acts targeting individuals because of their faith or identity harm entire communities and undermine the values of dignity, safety, and inclusion that we must all continue to defend. And as we confront rising hate and extremism, we also want our residents to know that LA County remains committed to prevention, education, and support through initiatives that we have put forward, such as LA versus Hate, which provides resources and a safe place to report acts of hate and discrimination. At this time, I would like to ask everyone to please join me and the board in a moment of silence for the victims, their loved ones, and all the communities affected by hate and violence. Can we please stand for a moment of silence? Thank you. Now let's begin the meeting. We welcome you to our regularly scheduled meeting of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. Today is Tuesday, May 19, 2026. We take note that a quorum of the board is present. The interim chief executive officer, county council executive officer, and the sergeant at arms are all here to assist. We will now start the county's land acknowledgement. The County of Los Angeles recognizes that we occupy land originally and still inhabited and cared for by the Tongva, Tataviam, Serrano, Quiche, and Chumash peoples. We honor and pay respect to their elders and descendants, past, present, and emerging, as they continue their stewardship of these lands and waters. We acknowledge that settler colonization resulted in land seizure, disease, subjugation, slavery, relocation, broken promises, genocide, and multi-generational trauma. This acknowledgement demonstrates our responsibility and commitment to truth, healing, and reconciliation, and to elevating the stories, culture, and community of the original inhabitants of Los Angeles County. We are grateful to have the opportunity to live and work on these ancestral lands. We are dedicated to growing and sustaining relationships with native peoples and local tribal governments, including in no particular order. Fernandeño Tataviam, Band of Mission Indians. Gabrielino Tongva, Indians of California Tribal Council. Gabrieleno Tongva, San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians. Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians, Quiche Nation. Yahaviatam of San Manuel Nation, San Fernando Band of Mission Indians, Coastal Band of Chumash Nation, Gabrielino Tongva Nation, Gabrielino Tongva Tribe. To learn more about the First Peoples of Los Angeles County, please visit the Los Angeles City County Native American Indian Commission website at lanaisc.lacounty.gov. Thank you. Members, today we're going to go a little bit out of order. We're going to start first with the Pledge of Allegiance, which will be led by Samuel T. Pollock, former Corporal, United States Marine Corps, representing Lakewood from the 4th District. Please stand. Yes, please stand.

Osada Solani. Good morning. Please face the flag. Place your right hand over your heart. If you're a veteran, you may render a hand salute. and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Can we have the presentation certificate? Yes, and then we're going to go back to the invocator. He's parking, that's why. Trying to make a call.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It is my honor to just come right here. It is my honor to welcome and recognize Corporal Samuel T. Pollock for leading us in the Pledge of Allegiance today. Corporal Pollack proudly served in the United States Marine Corps from 1980 to 1985 and was deployed to Iwakuni and Okinawa, Japan, where he worked as a jet engine mechanic. Today, he continues his lifelong commitment to serving others as a registered nurse at the Tibor Rubin VA Medical Center in Long Beach. For the last 10 years, he has skillfully served patients in primary care, the ICU, and Veterans Mental Health. Corporal Pollack is a two-time Good Conduct Medal recipient and a Great Catch Award recipient. The Great Catch Award recognizes healthcare professionals who identify and prevent a potential safety risk before someone is harmed. In this case, Corporal Pollack took swift action to save the life of a veteran who was having a severe medical reaction. He and another nurse stabilized the veteran and they were able to safely transport him to the ER. Last Saturday, Corporal Pollack achieved another milestone. He graduated with a Master of Science in Nursing from Cal State Dominguez Hills. He continues to give back to his community by mentoring aspiring nursing students and serving the Native American Veterans Association color guard. Corporal Pollack has been married to his wife, Belinda Smith, for almost 16 years. That seems like a great catch, the great catch award. I made you smile, you're so serious. Belinda is also a Navy veteran, and she is also a member of the county family and works for our Department of Mental Health. Together, they are proud parents of two daughters and one son. Thank you, Corporal Pollack, for your service to our country and your dedication to the residents of LA County. And on behalf of the residents of Los Angeles County, on behalf of my colleagues here on the Board of Supervisors, we wanted to present you with the certificate. And thank you again for being with us this morning and honoring us with leading us in our pledge. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. What an honor to meet you. Thank you. I guess I take this. Thank you.

Okay. At this time, we will now have the invocation, which will be led by Pastor Rudy Trujillo, Faith Center Church, San Fernando, representing the third district. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. God bless everyone. I was lost, and now I'm found. Thank you. Literally. Both physically and spiritually. First of all, I want to thank our supervisor, Horvick. Thank you for the invite to be here. I love you. I love your office and all those that serve our community. I wanted to open up with a word of prayer. I wrote it down so I don't forget. Not that we forget to pray. I'm blessed and I'm honored. to be with you today. Once again, thank you, Supervisor Horvick and all the team and to all of our supervisors for the opportunity. Scripture reading very quickly, Romans 13, 8, owe nothing to anyone except to love one another. For the one who loves someone else has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, you shall not commit adultery. You shall not commit murder. You shall not steal. You shall not covet. And if there's any other commandment that is summed up in this statement, you shall love your neighbor more. As yourself. Love does not commit evil against a neighbor. Therefore, love is the fulfillment of the law. 1 Corinthians 1.13. And now, these three things remain. Faith, hope, love. The greatest of these is love. Today I pray the Holy Spirit, miraculous love of God, be and rest upon each of us today in the spirit of service as we come together and assemble in gratitude, humility. We thank the Lord for choosing us to hear those we serve and to hear their voices in addressing their concerns. We thank you, Lord Jesus, for choosing us to hear those we serve and that you give us a hearing ear to hear their hearts of the broken, of those that are going through difficult times and facing challenges. Lord, thank you for choosing us. May we see the needs of our community. Give us wisdom to implement your plan as we serve today, being transparent and accountable to bring blessings. As we love our neighbors, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, we ask you to inform us, guide us, in the name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. And everyone in agreement said amen. You may be seated. If I could, I just wanted to... dedicate this time to my mom and dad. My dad was a disabled veteran who passed away at 45 years old. My mother also in her 50s, both of them aerospace industries. And it's such a privilege and honor just to mention their name here and to remember them. They loved their community. We grew up in Pacoima, the projects. And we come out of the projects. And I thank God that he lifts us from those places where we face a lot of challenges. I'm one of those guys that was beaten. And even in kindergarten. facing challenges in kindergarten. So I know what it's like to develop hate in your heart for people, not because you hate people, but because of what was done to you. And I'm proud to say that through my grandmother who passed away in her 30s and my great-grandfather, my grandfather who passed away at 30 years of age from alcohol, Working the refineries, worked every day, and I'm proud to say that I'm an indigenous Tiwa to be here representing. Thank you. May God bless you.

Supervisor Horvath. Yes.

Please join me in thanking Pastor Rudy Trujillo of the Faith Center Church in San Fernando for leading us in our invocation today. Pastor Rudy Trujillo is a faith-based advocate and community leader with over four decades of dedicated service. His personal experience growing up in Pacoima gives him a deep, firsthand understanding of the struggles faced by at-risk youth and their families. After founding a church in San Francisco in 1980, he relocated to San Fernando in 1990, where he served as senior pastor at Faith Center Church. His work is rooted in gang intervention, youth diversion, and public safety initiatives, where he's fostered healing, restoration, and hope through community partnerships. Pastor Trujillo also served with Champions in Service as a case manager for gang reduction and youth development clients. And since 2019, he's also collaborated with the Juvenile Justice Collaborative alongside the Los Angeles County and the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office to help develop programs focused on reducing youth violence through both YDD and DYD initiatives. Pastor Trujillo's perspective is shaped by a profound understanding of adversity, resilience, and the critical needs of our local families. His experience, commitment, and care are felt in our community every day. Thank you for leading us in our invocation today and for everything you do for our community.

Okay, with that, we'll now have the pet presentation by Supervisor Barger.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Because of the Sandy Fire in Simi Valley, our Agora Care Center wasn't able to join us today in person, but that's not going to stop us from finding pets-loving homes. So turn your attention to the screen. Meet Opal and Jet, nine-week-old pit bull puppies, siblings of the two puppies we had last week. These sweet pups are eager to find homes where they can play, grow, and thrive. Call the Agura Care Center at 818-991-0071 to make Opal and Jet yours. And again, these are siblings of the puppies that we had last week. And then we also have a pet from Palmdale. Meet Legacy, a one-year-old Cane Corso. She is a very happy, friendly dog who loves attention. She came in with a great attitude and a wagging tail to match. You can call the Palmdale Care Center at 661-575-2888 to bring her home. And once again, I want to really highlight the promotion and remind everyone that adoptions are not the only way to make a difference in the lives of our pets. our animal care centers are always looking for volunteers. Whether you want to help by fostering, assisting with shelter operations, providing medical care, grooming, or promoting the amazing pets looking for home, there is something for everyone. Visit animalcare.lacounty.gov to learn more. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. So with that, Executive Officer, can you please call the agenda?

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board. Today's agenda will begin on page two, Consent Calendar, Board of Supervisors, items one through 21. On item three, Supervisor Han requests that this item be held. On item 11, Supervisor Horfath requests that this item be held. On item 13, Supervisors Mitchell, Han and Barger are abstaining from the vote. On item 14, this includes a revision as indicated on the supplemental agenda. On item 15, this includes a revision as indicated on the supplemental agenda. On item 16, Supervisor Bargert requests that this item be held. This item will be held with item 61C. Also, this includes a revision as indicated on the supplemental agenda. On item 17, Supervisor Solis requests that this item be held. Also, this includes a revision as indicated on the supplemental agenda. On item 18, this includes a revision as indicated on the supplemental agenda. On page 24, administrative matters, items 22 through 63. On item 23, Supervisor Han requests that this item be continued to July 21st, 2026, as indicated on this posted agenda. Also on this item, Supervisor Mitchell is abstaining from the vote to continue the item. On item 24, the interim chief executive officer requests that this item be continued to June 9th, 2026, as indicated on the supplemental agenda. On item 26, Supervisor Horvath is recusing herself from the vote pursuant to Government Code Section 84308 because she received a contribution or contributions of more than $500 within the past 12 months from Mark, who is a party participant agent or party participant in the proceeding. On item 36, Supervisor Horfath is recusing herself from the vote pursuant to Government Code Section 84308 because she received a contribution or contributions of more than $500 within the past 12 months from Albert M. Sinella, who is a party participant or agent of a party or participant in the proceeding. On item 37, the Director of Beaches and Harbors requests that this item be continued to June 30th, 2026. On items 43 and 44, Supervisor Horfath requests that these items be held together. On item 45, Supervisor Horfath will be abstaining from the vote. On page 51, this includes miscellaneous additions to the agenda which were posted more than 72 hours in advance of the meeting as indicated on a supplemental agenda. Item 61A through 61C. On item 61B, Supervisor Solis requests that this item be held. On item 61C, Supervisor Barger requests that this item be held with item 16. On page 52, separate matter, item 64 through 66. On item 64, the board will take a separate vote on this item. On item 65, this is a recommendation to appoint Joseph M. Nikita to serve as the Chief Executive Officer at an annual salary of $565,000 effective May 19, 2026. Instruct the Director of Personnel to prepare and execute the appropriate agreement with the Chief Executive Officer. On item 66, this is a recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing the issuance and sale of 2026-27 tax and revenue anticipation notes in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $1 billion. On item 66, the board will take a separate vote on this item. On page 53, special district agendas. This is the agenda for the meeting of the Los Angeles County Development Authority, items 1D through 2D. On page 54, notices of closed session items CS1 through CS7. On item On item CS5, County Council requests that one case be continued to June 9th, 2026. We also do have a request from Supervisor Horvath to hold item number 13. The request for continuances through CS7 are before you. That completes the reading of the agenda, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Moved by Supervisor Horvath, seconded by Supervisor Hod to approve the items. That will be the order. Executive Officer, please play the code of conduct.

Ladies and gentlemen, may I please have your attention. The meeting of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors is about to commence. A code of conduct will now be read and we request that you comply with it to ensure the efficient administration of the meeting. Members of the public, it is your right to participate in today's Board hearing, and the Board encourages such participation. However, the right of the public to address the Board must be balanced with the need to ensure that public comment does not interfere with the orderly course of the Board's business. All are reminded to abide by the following rules. Speakers must cease speaking immediately when their time has ended. Public comment on agenda items must relate to the subject matter of that item. General public comment is limited to subjects within the jurisdiction of the Board. Public comment does not include the right to engage in a dialogue with Board members or staff. Please remain respectful of the forum and refrain from uttering, writing, or displaying profane, personal, threatening, derogatory, demeaning, or other abusive statements toward the Board, any member thereof, staff, or any other person. Members of the audience should be respectful of the views expressed by speakers, staff, and board members and may not clap, cheer, whistle, or otherwise disrupt the orderly conduct of the meeting. Any person engaging in conduct that disrupts the meeting is subject to being removed from the board meeting. And finally, if you witness conduct or behavior by other members of the public that disrupts your ability to remain engaged or participate in this meeting, please notify the sergeant at arms or other county staff. Thank you for your cooperation.

Thank you. Today's meeting order will be the following. Public comment on items not held for discussion by the board, including the closed session matters, followed by items three, then 16 and 61C, which will be taken up together, followed by item 13, items 11 and 17, then items 43 and 44, item 61B, then general public comment, and finishing up with closed session matters. Before we begin, executive officer, please read the call-in information and explain the speaking rules.

Good morning, members of the public. If you wish to participate in public comment, you may do so in person or remotely. To participate remotely, please visit our website at www.bos.lacounty.gov to register and join the meeting, or you may call 213-306-3065 and use access code 25347765349 and the meeting password 2672026. You will have the opportunity to address the board throughout the meeting. For items not held by the board, you will receive one minute for one item and up to two minutes for two or more items. For items held by supervisors, you will have one minute to address the board and one minute to address the board on general public comment for a total of up to six minutes. When it is your turn to speak, if registered on a computer or device, you will hear a beep and your name will be called. Or if joining by telephone, you will hear your line is unmuted, your area code and the first three digits of your phone number will be called. To ensure we hear from both in-person and remote speakers, we will alternate between the two speaking cues. Members of the public who are in attendance, when you hear or see your name displayed on the screen, please come down to the front of the boardroom and staff will assist you. Please do not approach the podium until directed to do so. Also, for members of the public in attendance, please note that we have a constituent assistance team that includes representatives from the Departments of Mental Health, Public Social Services, Children and Family Services, LA Homeless Services Authority, and Parks and Recreation in the audience should you need assistance from them. At this time, we will hear from members of the public wishing to address the board on all items not held for discussion by supervisors, including closed session matters. The consent items will be acted upon with one motion. For members of the public joining us remotely to comment on these items, please use the raise hand feature if you're online or press star three if on a telephone. Please indicate the agenda item numbers that you wish to address in the beginning of your comment for us to allocate the appropriate amount of time.

We will now call in in-person speakers and while they're coming forward, we will take remote speakers. This will be for all items not held by the board for discussion and closed session items. Will the following individuals please come forward and staff will assist you. Jessica Peral and Perry Goldberg. Jeremy Payne, your line is open. Please state the agenda items you're addressing and begin.

Hi, number 11 please, can you hear me?

Number 11 is being held. You can come back to public comment on that item when it's called. Thank you.

Olena Anderson, your line is open. Please state the agenda items you're addressing and begin.

I'm calling in to speak on number three, the LA Board of Supervisors Wear Orange Proclamation for National Gun Violence Awareness Day.

Item three is also being held. You can get back in queue and do public comment when that item is called.

Thank you. Caller with phone number 310-628, your line is open. Please state your name, the agenda items you're addressing, and begin.

Agenda item number 14, language justice.

Go ahead.

Yes, I'd like to provide public comment for that.

Please go ahead. Continue with your comment.

Thank you. My name is Diana Chung. I represent the education social services in language to bridge the gap between our community members and linked important resources i'm writing in support of supervisor han's motion to review policy and procedures around language supports for aapi languages for families who encounter dcfs the aapi community while united under this acronym represents dozens of unique communities from distinct lands cultures and mother tongues for this reason many continue to face barriers accessing culturally and and risk getting swept up in powerful systems where they remain voiceless. We support this deeper dive into current protocols and policies for after-hour calls for L.O.T.E. callers during crisis, emergency, and response situations.

Thank you. Paluma Bustos, your line is open. Please state the agenda items you're addressing and begin.

the Traffic Initiative at Loyola Law School. As the county moves forward with this report, and I'm calling in regards to item number 12, as the county moves forward with this report, I encourage the board to ensure that youth impacted by trafficking and exploitation are included in the analysis of service gaps, referrals, pathways, and behavioral health needs. Youth impacted by trafficking are disproportionately represented in the child welfare and juvenile systems, and youth involved in these systems are also at increased risk for trafficking and exploitation. Many of these young people experience trauma, anxiety, depression, PTSD, or substance abuse issues. Better coordination across mental health, housing, crisis response, and other systems that are renewed can help identify vulnerabilities earlier and prevent young people from falling through the cracks. I also encourage the county to work closely with trusted community-based organizations and survivor-informed providers who are often the first point of support for these young people. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair, there are no other remote speakers to address the board. Remote participation for these items is now concluded. We will go to in-person speakers. Please begin.

Good morning. My name is Perry Goldberg. I'm here to speak on items 11, 65, 20, and 26 on behalf of the newly formed Fiduciary Alliance for Los Angeles. Regarding number 11, the Ethics Commission,

On item 11, that's actually being held, so you can reserve your time.

I will reserve my time on that one. On number 65, which has to do with the appointment of the county CEO. The county CEO is the most important role in the county, and this is a position that should be filled via a rigorous selection process, not a hand-picked person. The last two county CEOs both ended up with seven-figure settlements from the county, and the contract for this position should be thoroughly vetted by the board and the public. The three-page letter from the HR department on this is requesting that the HR department negotiate and execute this contract without any additional vetting. So this should not go forward. And I've submitted letters on all of these items.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Good morning. My name is Jessica Peral, and I'm here with the Los Angeles LGBT Center speaking in support of item 18, Supervisors Solis and Horvath's domestic violence motion. Domestic violence and intimate partner violence is our urgent public safety and health crises, especially in the LGBTQ community. Our experiences as survivors often highlight the gaps in our system, including lack of housing, barriers to employment, and cycles of criminalization. The inclusion of a GBV expert at HSH is going to be especially critical given the pending reductions to DV staffing at LAHSA. We need to ensure continued best practices for survivors who are experiencing homelessness at this time. I urge your full support of this motion. Thank you.

Thank you. That concludes our time for public comment on these items.

Madam Chair, members of the Board, the following items are before you. Items 1 and 2, 4 through 10, 12, 14 and 15, 18 through 22, 25, 26, was Supervisor Horvath accusing herself in the vote pursuant to Government Code Section 84308 because she received a contribution of contributions of more than $500 within the past 12 months from Mark Landver and Dewey no who are party participants or agents of a party participant in the proceeding 27 through 35 36 with supervisor horfath recusing herself pursuant to government code section 84308 38 through 42 45 with supervisor horfath abstaining from the vote 46 through 60 61a 65 1d and 2d and please note we will take a separate vote on items 64 and 66 these items are before you

Moved by Supervisor Mitchell, seconded by Supervisor Barger to approve the items with the exceptions noted by the executive officer. Executive officer, please call the roll.

Supervisor Mitchell.

Aye.

Supervisor Mitchell, aye. Supervisor Horfath.

Aye.

Supervisor Horfath, aye. Supervisor Hahn.

Aye.

Supervisor Hahn, aye. Supervisor Barger.

Aye.

Supervisor Barger, aye. Supervisor Solis.

Aye.

Supervisor Solis, aye. Motion carries five to zero. Madam Chair, we will now vote on a separate matter, items 64 and 66. We'll start with 64, which is before you.

Moved by myself and seconded by Supervisor Horvath. To approve the item, Executive Officer, please call the roll.

Supervisor Mitchell? Aye. Supervisor Mitchell, aye. Supervisor Horvath?

Aye.

Supervisor Horvath, aye. Supervisor Han?

Aye.

Supervisor Han, aye. Supervisor Barger?

Aye.

Supervisor Barger, aye. Supervisor Solis?

Aye.

Supervisor Solis, aye. Motion carries five to zero. Item 66 is now before you.

Moved by Supervisor Han, seconded by Supervisor Barger to approve the item. Executive Officer, please call the roll.

Supervisor Mitchell?

Aye.

Supervisor Mitchell, aye. Supervisor Horvath?

Aye.

Supervisor Horvath, aye. Supervisor Han?

Aye.

Supervisor Han, aye. Supervisor Barger?

Aye.

Supervisor Barger, aye. Supervisor Solis?

Aye.

Supervisor Solis, aye. Motion carries five to zero. We will now move on to item three, motion to proclaim June, 2026 as Gun Violence Awareness Month, June 5th, 2026 as Gun Violence Awareness Day, and June 5th through June 7th, 2026 as Wear Orange Weekend throughout Los Angeles County, which was held by Supervisor Han. For members of the public joining us remotely to comment on this item, please use the raise hand feature if you're online or press star three if on a telephone.

Thank you, Supervisor Han. You are recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Colleagues, this motion before us today proclaims June as Gun Violence Awareness Month, and the first Friday of June, Friday, June 5th, as Gun Violence Awareness Day. Just yesterday, we had another horrible act of gun violence occur in San Diego, where two teenagers targeted a Muslim place of worship, killing three people before ending their own lives. This hateful act has caused an immense amount of pain and hurt for the Muslim community, and our hearts go out to the victims and survivors of this tragedy. Thank you, Madam Chair, for allowing us to have that moment of silence before we started our meeting this morning. We're learning more about where people who commit gun violence are getting their weapons. In the wake of the recent shooting at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, deeply troubling information came to light about a local gun store chain called Turner's Outdoorsmen. The Turner's location in Torrance, where the alleged shooter purchased the firearm used in that attack, has an alarming record of selling guns that later end up connected to crimes. In fact, among all the gun stores in California, this single Torrance location ranks second in the state for the number of so-called crime guns traced back to it. Between 2022 and 2024, 642 guns sold by this Torrance Turner's location were later recovered at a crime scene or found to be illegally possessed. That means on the average that every other day a gun sold by this one store ends up connected to criminal activity. So I formally called on our district attorney to investigate the sales practices of Turner's Outdoors locations all over Los Angeles County. And this board has taken important steps to address gun violence through common sense policies. We banned the sale of .50 caliber firearms and ammunition in unincorporated areas. We prohibited minors from entering those gun stores and required gun retailers to implement stronger security measures, including surveillance cameras and fingerprint logs. These protections currently apply only in our unincorporated areas. But as we make gun violence awareness a proclamation today, I strongly encourage cities across the county to adopt similar policies. This motion today demonstrates the county's ongoing commitment to addressing gun violence by highlighting some ways that we're working to prevent it, not just respond to it. One way the county does this is through important initiatives that I want to make sure everyone is aware of, like the gun violence restraining orders, or GVROs. GVROs allow family members, some employers, colleagues, teachers, and law enforcement to file a petition to prevent a person who possesses a significant risk of harming themselves or others from having or purchasing a gun, ammunition, or magazine for a specified length of time between 21 days and five years. Additionally, my office is hosting our next gun buyback in partnership with the Long Beach Police Department on Saturday, June 27th from 9 to 1 at the Martin Luther King Jr. Park in Long Beach. We host these buybacks in collaboration with local law enforcement agencies where people can turn in their firearms in exchange for gift cards completely anonymously. No questions asked. And to date, my office has hosted 16 gun buyback events that have removed close to 3,000 guns off the streets. And these are guns which could have been used in an accidental shooting, during a suicide, or to commit a crime. These are now out of commission and completely destroyed. And we invite anyone who's interested in receiving gift cards in exchange for their guns to come by. We invite this Gun Violence Awareness Month. I hope we can get the word out to our residents about not only steps their elected government is taking to address gun violence, but steps our residents themselves can take to protect their families. Thank you, Supervisor Solis, for joining me on this motion, and I'll turn it back to you.

Thank you so much, Supervisor Hahn, for inviting me to co-author this meeting. Very important motion, and it comes through your passion, your commitment, and all that you've done in the past few years to help collect those guns that are loose in our community and do, in ways, reach the wrong individuals and are used against the public. So colleagues, gun violence, as we know, is really a public health threat that continues to impact many of our county residents and Californians across the state. We, of course, just held a moment of silence right here on the board because of yesterday's tragic incident resulting in the devastating death of three individuals at San Diego's largest mosque in what is being investigated as a hate crime. And gun violence continues to perpetrate pain, fear in our communities here. And in 2024 alone, more than 700 deaths in the county involved firearms. And although gun violence impacts all communities, communities of color experience the greatest burden. We also know that gun violence is heavily connected to domestic violence. And that's why I was glad to see the board declare gun violence a public health crisis and direct the development of a county platform to address gun violence. following the tragic shooting in the city of Monterey Park that occurred almost three years ago. Yet, we must continue to raise awareness on gun violence prevention. And this includes increasing awareness of gun violence restraining orders, as you noted, Supervisor Hahn, promoting gun safety via gun safety locks, which that has also been something we have worked on on the board, enhancing access to education, on gun violence prevention tools in culturally and linguistically appropriate ways. We also can't forget the importance of programs that promote healing and connection, such as, for example, a program that I am familiar with known as Soledad Enrichment Action. They provide programming for families through the first district who are impacted by gang violence, which we know is linked to gun violence. We must continue to do what we can to prevent senseless deaths, ensure our communities continue to be safe spaces for everyone, and hopefully that we can have one day free from gun violence. Thank you again, Supervisor Hahn and all those that are supportive of this measure and this motion and for bringing the attention that's so important today. Thank you so much. And with that, I will recognize my colleague, Supervisor Horvath.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank you both for bringing forward this motion and the acknowledgement of gun violence that unfortunately continues to grip far too many communities. While I am glad to hear as the motion points out that firearm deaths across Los Angeles County are down since 2021, I agree there is still much more work to be done. I'm happy to support the motion today and our Office of Violence Prevention as they work to advocate and support ways to reduce gun violence and to focus on gun safety. In the least, we owe it to our county departments and our millions of constituents to educate ourselves and each other on gun safety, especially gun violence restraining orders that can prevent gun purchases by those that pose a risk of harming themselves or others if they're allowed to purchase a gun. These restraining orders are absolutely crucial to public safety as so many Angelenos have been touched by domestic violence, intimate partner violence, gender-based violence, and so much more. Just yesterday, as has been mentioned, we were horrified to learn of yet another attack on a religious community in Southern California, the Islamic Center of San Diego, carried out through gun violence. Schoolchildren were present at the time of the shooting, and too many innocent people were murdered. We must take as many steps as we can to increase and improve gun safety and reduce the risk of gun violence. I appreciate this motion and I'm proud to support it. Thank you. Thank you. Supervisor Mitchell.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to applaud my colleagues for bringing this motion forward. I'll be supporting it. I was struck on our local spectrum news this morning. They acknowledged that this motion would be brought forward and the anchor who covered the story talked about the difference in our position versus our federal government. And she acknowledged the juxtaposition. That coupled with the additional data points she shared where gun violence has now superseded auto accidents as the leading killer of young people. And when you consider how preventable this can be based on policies we help establish, Supervisor Hahn's information about one gun shop and the number of guns they sell that lead to criminal activity is just mind-blowing. So this is another example of local government really trying to step forward to take care of our local residents. And so I'm proud to be supportive of the motion.

Thank you. With that, EO, can we go to comments?

Will the following individual please come forward and staff will assist you? Charles Allen. As a final reminder for remote participants, to be placed in the speaking queue to address item three, if you have not already done so, use the raise hand feature on your device or press star three on the telephone now. We will start with our in-person speaker. Please begin.

Hello, everybody. My name is Charles Allen. I work as an associate director on the government affairs team at Everytown for gun safety. We are the largest national gun violence prevention organization in the country. I'd like to start off by saying thank you to Supervisor Hahn and Solis for bringing this motion forward to proclaim June as Gun Violence Awareness Month. As we all know, the horrific actions in San Diego yesterday make this time more important than ever for us to step up as community members, as parents, as survivors to be able to combat gun violence in our communities. So thank you all. And again, I want to thank the entire board for all of the work that you continue to do in our communities day to day. And just know that our organization is here to support and provide any type of information. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Elena Anderson, your line is open. Please begin.

Hi, my name is Elena Gupta Anderson, and I'm a volunteer with Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, which started after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Thank you for bringing this proclamation forward. and for recognizing National Gun Violence Awareness Month, or Wear Orange. And it's orange because that's the color hunters wear to avoid being shot in the wilderness. It matters to me because when I was a high school teacher, I always had a lesson plan and an escape plan for my students. And yesterday's tragic shooting reminds us all why teachers live that way every day. The shooters were 17 and 18 years old and not legally permitted to own guns in California, and their parents are legally responsible for securing guns in their own homes. I want to thank you all and invite everyone to attend a Wear Orange event on the first weekend of June. You can find information and locations of those by texting the word orange, O-R-A-N-G-E, to the phone number 64433 or going to the wearorange.org website. Thank you.

Caller with phone number 818371, your line is open. Please state your name and begin.

Good morning, my name is Lauren Leib and I'm speaking on behalf of the Los Angeles County Chapters of Brady United Against Gun Violence, the nation's oldest gun violence prevention organization. We applaud Supervisors Hahn and Solis for highlighting the toll of gun violence in all its forms on all Angelenos and for bringing awareness to steps that can be taken to prevent injury and death from firearms. Gun Violence Awareness Day and Month and Wear Orange Weekend provide a platform for educating the public about gun violence prevention. Thank you for focusing attention on the leading cause of death for America's children. We can and must do better. We strongly support this motion.

Thank you.

Thank you. Gregory Fidel, your line is open. Please begin.

Hi, good morning. This is Gregory Fidel, senior manager with Brady United Against Gun Violence, speaking today in strong support of Supervisor Hahn and Solis' resolution for the Wear Orange commemoration. It's very, very sad that we all now know the statistics of gun violence very well, including as Supervisor Mitchell just mentioned, it's the leading cause of death for children in this country. But what's also very important to underscore is that this is 100% preventable. Every single aspect of this crisis, there are common sense solutions that You know, this board has been leading on in California and California has been leading on. But we know with the recent shooting, attempted shooting at the White House Correspondents Dinner, the firearm that was used there is traced back to a dealer, Turner's Outdormant in Torrance, California. This individual store has not been inspected by California's Department of Justice in the profiting five years or during the past decade by the ATF. And in the absence of this oversight and regulation, we have allowed the proliferation of firearms in our communities and urging strong support to investigate Turner's Outdormant. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair, there are no other remote speakers to address the board. That concludes the time for public comment on this item.

Item three is before you.

Thank you. A move by Supervisor Hahn, and I will second to approve the item. Executive Officer, please call the roll.

Supervisor Mitchell. Supervisor Mitchell, aye. Supervisor Horfath, aye. Supervisor Horfath, aye. Supervisor Han, aye. Supervisor Han, aye. Supervisor Barger, aye. Supervisor Barger, aye. Supervisor Solis, aye. Supervisor Solis, aye. Motion carries five to zero. We will now... Oh, sorry, let me. We will now move on to item 16, implementing the Los Angeles County Disaster Recovery Rebuild Authority, and item 61C, County Code Title II, Administration Ordinance Amendment, which were held by Supervisor Barger. For members of the public joining us remotely to comment on these items, Please use the raise hand feature if you are online or press star 3 if on the telephone. Mike Pastrella, Director of Public Works, and Joseph Nikita, Chief Executive Officer, are available for questions. For the departmental speakers, please state your name and title for the record when you address the board.

Thank you, Supervisor Barger.

Thank you, and thank you, Supervisor Horvath, for co-authoring this motion with me. In January of 2025, the Eaton and Palisades fires tore through our communities, leaving behind deep scars, loss of life, the destruction of homes, and displacement of many of our residents. The road to recovery has not been easy, and it certainly has not been perfect. But I know that there are many families in Altina over the months following the fire that have been filled with immense challenges, frustration, and quite frankly, exhaustion. In the immediate aftermath of these fires, the county mobilized rapidly to clear debris, stabilize neighborhoods, and establish emergency systems. This was an all-hands-on-deck moment where our county department stepped up to meet that moment. And I think you would agree, Director Pestrella, that your team truly did step up to meet that moment. However, I want to recognize the Department of Public Works, which worked in overdrive on so many of these critical issues, including debris removal and stabilization. But at a time at the same time, Public Works serves all L.A. County and has had an incredible role to play. These disasters remind us that emergency responses and recovery need dedicated resources and dedicated teams. Accordingly, we work to break down traditional bureaucratic silos in recovery by creating one-stop permitting centers and establishing a unified permitting authority. We have seen measurable and tangible progress, more than 3,300 permit applications received, over 2,300 residential permits issued, and more than 1,400 homes currently under construction in Altadena. We've also provided over $17 million in fee deferrals and refunds to ease some of the financial strain. These are meaningful wins, but they are milestones on a long road that survivors feel they have been on far rockier than it should be. We hear the feedback, we accept it, and today it is about continuing to erect the systems that will lead to recovery. The recent reports from our county departments outline the staggering scale of which we are up against. In Altadena, we are facing more than $2 billion, $2 billion in public infrastructure restoration costs. This includes identifying solutions to help more than 600 homes transition from septic to municipal sewer, addressing the private mutual water districts and the infrastructure challenges, and working to underground our utility infrastructure. which is why the county championed Senate Bill 782, which allowed us to establish a disaster recovery districts. These districts will be a source of local revenue to help us with the significant challenges that lay ahead. However, the most taxed increment financing districts, like most tax instrument financing districts, they will take time to generate the revenues before they can issue the bonds. In the face of such devastating tragedy, it is paramount that we build back a resilient 21st century infrastructure to deliver on these ambitious and critical promises. This motion before us officially implements the Los Angeles County Disaster Recovery Rebuild Authority. The rebuild authority established as a dedicated team within the Department of Public Works will serve as our centralized, lean, and agile coordinating body. Its single defining purpose is to cut through the red tape, accelerate the rebuilding of public infrastructure, support private property recovery, and aggressively maximize every single dollar of local state and federal funding that is available to us. We are launching phase zero today, which is special with a specialized team of 13 full time positions. Their immediate mandate is to finalize a comprehensive operational plan aligned directly with our one stop permitting centers and continue the development of our infrastructure master plan in coordination with our communities. To ensure absolute executive oversight and accountability, this motion also cements a three-person CEO disaster recovery oversight team. This team will focus on the big picture, pursuing our piece of the state's $1 billion AB100 disaster recovery fund, federal FEMA, and hazard mitigation grants, and building partnerships with philanthropic and community-based organizations. Last month, I went to D.C. to meet with the congressional and state members, as did all of my colleagues. I was glad to be able to meet directly with our president, along with Mayor Bass, to advocate at the highest level of government for our communities collectively. The mayor and I brought our respective requests about $8 billion for the county and similar to the city. And we were heartened by the conversations and the support that we were given. The county cannot do this alone and needs partnerships with and funding from state and federal governments to rebuild our communities. While there is definitely, definitely more work to be done in Washington, D.C., I've talked to my congressional representative for Altadena, Congressmember Chu. I believe we can and will get it done. Accordingly, the Rebuild Authority is being created and developed to be ready to scale up its operations as these critical funds begin to flow in. Our residents have shown incredible resilience, but they shouldn't have to rely solely on resilience to get back into their homes. They deserve a structured, fully funded, and seamless county system working night and day to get them back home. And with that, I just have one question before I turn it over to my co-author, and this is for county council. I want to make sure that we are, in fact, including these costs in our claim to Edison moving forward. That means both the waiving of the fees, but also the actual cost put on our departments that are having to create these authorities.

We are, Supervisor.

OK. I just want my board to hear that as well, because my greatest fear is that we'll have missed opportunities because these are costs directly related to this disaster. And I feel it's important for us to recover those costs, but make sure that our survivors are not placed with that burden. Thank you, Madam Chair, and again, thank you, Supervisor Horvath, for co-authoring this motion with me.

Supervisor Horvath, yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank you too, Supervisor Barger, and your entire team for your partnership, not only on this motion, but in all the work that has happened since the disastrous fires that broke out last year. I'm proud to be your co-author on this motion, and I know that our teams have been bonded in ways that no team should have to be, and I really appreciate that work. In February, this board passed a motion directing report backs and a draft ordinance to establish a disaster recovery rebuild authority. The authority's responsibilities will include rebuilding public infrastructure in both fire impacted areas, advancing hazard mitigation, strengthening communications and community engagement, and coordinating logistics, all in alignment with a key recommendation from the Blue Ribbon Commission on Climate Action and Fire Safe Recovery. And I want to thank everyone who participated in that. 16 months after the Palisades and Eaton fires, the need for centralized governance to rebuild public infrastructure and coordinate recovery at a community scale remains urgent. The communities rebuilding today still need more support and a lot of it. A disaster recovery rebuild authority for the county's unincorporated communities, including Sunset Mesa, parts of Topanga, and the Santa Monica Mountains, alongside the communities in Altadena and the unincorporated 5th District, will lead the effort to deliver public infrastructure and coordinate reconstruction by streamlining rebuilding, permitting, and financing. In practice, the authority will coordinate agencies responsible for critical infrastructure, projects like sewer systems, utilities, and roadways to ensure bureaucracy does not slow down on recovery or rebuilding. The dedicated team within the rebuild authority will better position the county to rebuild public infrastructure, to support the rebuilding of private property, and to meet the needs of survivors in the aftermath of one of the worst disasters in LA County's history. Importantly, sustainability and climate resilience must guide our work. We cannot rebuild without confronting the realities of our climate crisis and ensuring our communities are better protected against future wildfires. We know the scale of rebuilding requires more than just the status quo. We must use our resources efficiently and empower a dedicated recovery team to achieve the best way to bring people home faster and to rebuild our communities and our economy. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Seeing no other comments, I just want to also thank you both, author and co-author, because I too have concerns regarding who's going to pay for what. And it doesn't dawn on me that we have many of our departments that are really under the gun, so to speak. that are really pressed and I look at DPW but I also think about what's happening with our regional planning office because we, in some of our districts, our areas are being impacted and we're not seeing the same level of support and that's been reported to me and I understand perfectly why this is happening but we certainly need to try to obtain funds to help us backfill what we have already put forward. And that's time and employee staff and resources. So I thank you for that. Is there any questions for Mark?

No, I just, again, want to thank Mark, but also regional planning, fire, and public health, because really, I'm really proud of how they've worked together to address this tragedy. So thank you.

Thank you for being here, Mark. I know you have to attend to a funeral for one of your employees, and please give our condolences to the families. Thank you. Thank you, Supervisor. Thank you. Okay. With that, let's go to public comment.

Madam Chair, there are no in-person or remote speakers to address the board. That concludes the time for public comment on these items.

Item 16 is before you.

Okay, moved by Supervisor Barger, seconded by Supervisor Horvath. To approve the item, please call the roll.

Supervisor Mitchell?

Aye.

Supervisor Mitchell, aye. Supervisor Horvath?

Aye.

Supervisor Horvath, aye. Supervisor Hahn?

Aye.

Supervisor Hahn, aye. Supervisor Barker?

Aye.

Supervisor Barker, aye. Supervisor Solis? Aye. Supervisor Solis, aye. Motion carries five to zero. We have now item 61C, which is before you.

Moved by Supervisor Barger, seconded by Supervisor Horvath. Please call the roll.

Supervisor Mitchell. Aye. Supervisor Mitchell, aye. Supervisor Horfath.

Aye.

Supervisor Horfath, aye. Supervisor Hahn.

Aye.

Supervisor Hahn, aye. Supervisor Barger. Aye. Supervisor Barger, aye. Supervisor Solis.

Aye.

Supervisor Solis, aye. Motion carries five to zero. We will now move. On to item 13, extending price gouging protections, which was held by Supervisor Horvath. For members of the public joining us remotely to comment on this item, please use the raise hand feature if you're online or press star three if on a telephone.

Supervisor Horvath.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In March, our board had a discussion on whether or not to continue the price gouging protections. And we heard, excuse me, from Director Carbajal from DCBA, our department leading the price gouging task force. We asked him to come back to our board with metrics and indicators of what an off ramp would look like to discontinue the protections. His team at DCBA has been working on this report, and they're scheduled to come to the next homelessness and housing cluster, which I believe is next week on May 28th, as we've indicated in the motion before us today. That cluster only meets every two weeks, so that was the soonest it could be scheduled to be considered. Unfortunately, we couldn't get it at cluster before this item was heard before us today. I would ask that our colleagues allow DCBA to present that information that we've directed them to research before we end the critical protections, which are set to expire on May 28th. These protections not only safeguard housing options, but also prevent price gouging on the materials needed to accomplish work just discussed in our previous items. I'm just asking my colleagues for that consideration. Thank you, Madam Chair. Okay.

We need a public comment.

Public comment, please.

Will the following individual please come forward and staff will assist you. Jesus Rojas, caller with phone number 951-809. Your line is open. Please state your name and begin.

Hi, Matt Buck, Vice President of Public Affairs for the California Apartment Association. On behalf of the California Apartment Association, we respectfully urge you to terminate the Declaration of Penal Code 396. For several months, CAA has asked for a plan phased out of the provisions. While emergency provisions of Penal Code 396 served as an important safeguard for the residents during a challenging period, the circumstances that justified its extension county-wide no longer exist. Thank you for your review and consideration.

Thank you. Madam Chair, there are no other remote speakers to address the Board. Remote participation for this item is concluded. We will go to Ms. Ferguson. Speaker, please begin.

Hi, my name is Jesus Rojas for the apartment association of greater Los Angeles. This emergency price restrictions have now been in place for 17 months and counting. They long outlived the emergency that they were intended to address and are now purposefully being misused to exceed the state law limitations. As such, they are wrongfully being used to harm thousands of rental housing providers throughout the entire county. This must stop and it must stop now. There is no proof from DCBA that multifamily rental housing providers are hugely increasing rents for impacted homeowners or even that fire impacted individuals are living in multifamily properties. Thus, multifamily should be exempt from the extension from the same way that hotels and motels are exempt two months ago. DCBA should be required to provide data that clearly separates single-family properties from the multifamily properties based on the detailed tracking of fire-impacted homeowners. The cluster must have this clear and distinct information to know whether...

Thank you. That concludes the time for public comment on this item.

Item 13 is before you.

Moved by Supervisor Horvath, I will second. To approve the item, Executive Officer, please call the roll.

Supervisor Mitchell?

Abstain.

Supervisor Mitchell abstains. Supervisor Horvath?

Aye.

Supervisor Horvath, aye. Supervisor Hahn?

Abstain.

Supervisor Hahn abstains. Supervisor Barker?

Abstain.

Supervisor Barker abstains. Supervisor Solis?

Aye.

Supervisor Solis? Aye. Motion fails with two ayes and three abstentions.

Okay.

We will now move on to item 11, implementing Los Angeles County's first Ethics Commission, which was held by Supervisor Horvath. For members of the public joining us remotely to comment on this item, please use the raise hand feature if you're online or press star three if on a telephone. Nicholas Heidorn, GRTF Ethics Consultant, Sarah Sedwana, GRTF Ethics Ad Hoc Chair, and Rosa Soto, GRTF Ethics Co-Chair will make a presentation. Dean Logan, Registered Recorder, County Clerk, Oscar Valdez, Auditor-controller Joseph Nikita, Chief Executive Officer Kelly Johnson, Assistant Executive Officer and former Oakland Ethics Commission Executive Director David Green, Gabriela Gironas, Julia Muckeridge, John Fasana, ethics ad hoc members, and I are available for questions for the departmental speakers. Please state your name and title for the record when you address the board.

Supervisor Horvath. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a few comments to TS up. I'm very excited that today marks an important milestone for Los Angeles County following our voters historic approval of Measure G in November 2024. We're taking the next steps towards implementing the county's first independent ethics commission and office of ethics compliance. This work has been shaped through more than a year of thoughtful work by the Governance Reform Task Force, including the ad hoc subcommittee on the establishment of an independent ethics commission. Members of the task force are here today to present their recommendations, and I want to thank them for their leadership and partnership throughout this process. I especially want to thank my commissioner, Sarah Sudwani, and the members of the subcommittee, many of whom are here with us today. They are joined by consultant Nicholas Heidorn, a leading national expert on ethics, whose knowledge and experience has helped to inform their work. And so with that, I'm going to turn it over to our esteemed panel. I think Professor Sudwani is going to walk us through the committee's recommendations.

Thank you so much. Thank you for having us today. We're incredibly excited to be here. As you know, the task force has been around now for less than a year. For the last nine months, we have been working diligently to bring you these recommendations for an ethics commission, for the first ever ethics commission for Los Angeles County. A notion and an idea that has been strongly supported by Los Angeles voters, not only in the vote for Measure G, but even in polling from Loyola Marymount University. We see over 90% of Los Angeles County residents support the idea of the creation of an ethics commission. I come to you today with many of my esteemed colleagues. Most of the members of the subcommittee are all here with us today. John Fasana, who is Supervisor Barger's appointee, David Green, a representative of the SEIU. Julia Mockridge, an at-large member, also representing unincorporated areas. Gabriela Gironas, also an at-large member and also our youngest member on the task force, was a part of this work. Myself, of course, and my colleague Rosa Soto as well. Over the course of the last nine months, we have had a long process of reading many of the best practices. We brought on our consultant, Nicholas Heidorn, who served also as the executive director of the Oakland Ethics Commission. who led us in a benchmarking analysis to examine the best practices of ethics commissions across the state. We consulted with many experts throughout the state as well. We were also joined by Kelly Johnson and much of our work to learn more about the ethics work that's already happening within Los Angeles County. And so we're really happy to be here today to share with you these recommendations. I'll turn it over to Rosa.

Thank you so much and good morning, supervisors. We are, as was shared, very excited to be here today to offer the first set of recommendations establishing our County Ethics Commission and our Office of Ethics Compliance. For us, Measure G was clear that by 2026, there shall be an independent Los Angeles County Ethics Commission that shall investigate allegations of misconduct by county officials and monitor and enforce laws in coordination with other agencies related to governmental ethics. This is important because it follows the points of the charter and the trust that our community has placed in this government. And so for our task force, it is clear that the independence of this body is of most importance. Measure G is what is guiding this work as we move forward in sharing our recommendations. For us, it's important to highlight that a mandate of urgency to support the will of the voters is at the center of this work. And so I'll hand it over to Nick to share some of our initial recommendations.

Good morning, board members. So we started by looking, of course, directly at the language of Measure G and then also looking at different ethics commissions across the state and even across the country. We kind of distilled from that several north stars that guided the development of this proposal. The first is that kind of the mission of the commission, what is its reason for being, is to promote fairness, openness, honesty, and integrity in county government to make sure all the authorities that we're building are aimed towards that goal. To ensure fairness and maintain public trust, the commission must be politically independent and insulated. This is an important and key lesson from ethics commissions around the country. because it's impossible to do that watchdog oversight role if at any point the Commission can be defunded or retaliated against. Finally, the Commission must have sufficient tools and resources to accomplish its mission. This is not just in terms of staffing and funding, but also in terms of the authorities of the Commission to be able to bring forward investigations, as well as have the ability to do administrative hearings and procedures similar to that.

To provide a brief overview, you have a long report in front of you, but a brief overview, this commission recommendation creates a seven-member ethics commission that would be responsible for setting policy, for overseeing the Office of Ethics Compliance, and for adjudicating enforcement actions, much like many of the ethics commissions that you see in other jurisdictions. It would also establish an office of ethics compliance to support the commission's work. It would be led by a compliance officer that would support that commission. They would also provide education and advice. One of the key components for our subcommittee as well as for the full task force was that education be a key component to the Ethics Commission's work. An ethics commission does not only need to be punitive, but instead to encourage individuals to run for public office and to help troubleshoot along the way. So we really wanted to ensure that we prioritize not just enforcement of the law, but also education of those laws. A key component to our recommendation is the creation both of this commission by ordinance now, as soon as possible, but also through the creation of a charter amendment to be placed on the ballot. We have identified really the gold standards to create an independent commission for Los Angeles County. However, our review of the current county charter would limit the commission's ability to truly be independent in the ways that we see ethics commissions being independent of the rest of the county processes. So the ordinance that we recommend creating would help to establish this commission now, but we also strongly encourage you take a look at the charter amendment language that we have prepared for you and that that be placed on the ballot in November of 2026. so that this commission can be more formally established within the county's charter.

Our GRTF has taken the responsibility given to us as an advisory by the Board of Supervisors and Measure G very seriously. And so for us, our proposal is based on layered best practices from FPCC, LA City, San Francisco, and others across the country to ensure our commission is independence and impartiality. Some of those protections include minimum eligibility qualifications, diversified nominations, so that not one body or individual has more influence than others. Majority commission selected nominees, a board confirmation of all nominees at public meetings, And during and post-service restrictions, this is important because we really want that focus on what the commission does. and the respect that the community can give the body. And then single five-year term and removal for cause only. And so it's important for us to instill the public's trust and also, again, ensuring that as we do this work, we remain independent.

So the commission, of course, will be the adjudicatory body to determine if violations took place. It'll also set policy for the overall commission. But the Office of Ethics Compliance is the staff arm of the commission. It provides support to the commission as well as providing the advice and education to the regulated community to ensure that they can comply and presenting enforcement actions to the Commission. As Member Sodwani mentioned, we really took a prevention and education forward approach, which mirrors best practices within ethics commissions across the state. It was also important, just as the Commission itself needs to be independent, so does the staff, and that's an important component of bringing the whole process together. And so there are several protections here. Primarily, this would be creating an independent department within the county, which is similar to LA City, San Francisco, Oakland, other ethics commissions in the state. The compliance officer would be the head of this department but would report directly to the commission who could hire and fire that person as opposed to the county executive. Other elements that are important to preserve the independence of this department would be a minimum budget that would adjust for inflation, as well as having in-house legal counsel. The task force looked at, with the assistance of myself as well as Assistant Executive Officer Kelly Johnson, we looked at best practices and other commissions, we looked at their org charts, we looked at their staffing, We looked at what are the different types of regulated parties that were before each of those commissions to kind of come up with a benchmark for what would be an appropriate structure and staffing level. We expect the commission will probably be oriented around six core divisions, education and training, enforcement, policy and regulatory, IT and disclosure, legal and administrative, and came up with a staffing of about 54 FTE. I will note that is lower than the original county estimate of 73 to 93. This was our estimate of what would be kind of best staffing for the commission. But of course, full understanding of that will be once you start doing the work and you get a sense of your caseload.

Thank you so much. We are here for any questions. We were very excited to be able to present this to you today. These recommendations were passed by a super majority of the task force. We had extensive community outreach on this topic where we were out engaging community members. We have the support in a common cause and the League of Women Voters came and provided feedback on these recommendations and are in strong support of these recommendations. So we look forward to your discussion and hopefully your approval.

Thank you very much. I really want to appreciate the work of the subcommittee, the task force, and everyone represented here today. This motion is about delivering on the will of voters and building on the significant work of the governance reform task force. LA County has never before had an independent ethics commission in our entire history. This is a monumental step towards strengthening public trust and institutional accountability. And as you said, also an opportunity to create a place for education about those rules. When you are elected into office, it doesn't mean you automatically have a download on everything that you are accountable for. And so there's an opportunity here for education as well. I'm glad you highlight that. This is a motion reflecting stakeholder feedback and including updates to strengthen parity across elected offices in the appointment process. We're especially grateful for the detailed input we received from California Contract Studies Association and the RLA Coalition, among others, whose perspectives help strengthen and refine this framework. The updated structure recognizes that accountability is strongest when multiple elected offices and perspectives are represented in the process of selecting commissioners. It prioritizes parity and accountability of elected officials to the people we represent. It also preserves an important role for the Governance Reform Task Force in selecting a commission member, acknowledging the leadership and expertise they brought to this effort from the beginning. The public recruitment process is especially important because it creates opportunities for broader participation and representation, including from communities that have historically been underrepresented in civic processes. It also intentionally values lived experience, community leadership, and non-traditional expertise alongside professional backgrounds. Measure G set a clear mandate to create this commission in 2026. And this motion lays out the operational steps and timelines necessary to meet that responsibility. And I would say it's the voters will that created this mandate through Measure G. Establishing both the Ethics Commission and the Office of Ethics Compliance ensures this effort is not symbolic. It creates real infrastructure dedicated to ethics oversight and accountability. The November 2026 ballot measure would formally establish the Ethics Commission in the county charter, helping ensure these reforms remain permanent, independent, and accountable over the long term. This motion also directs county council to return to the board on June 30th with a draft interim ordinance establishing the Ethics Commission and Office of Ethics Compliance so implementation can begin without delay. Ultimately, this motion is about public trust, making sure county residents know there is an independent body dedicated to upholding ethics, to educating our community about ethics, and to accountability across county government. This discussion was long overdue, and in the spirit of transparency and accountability, I'm pleased we're having a discussion here today so that wherever we land on the composition of this body, the public can follow this conversation along with our intent and motivation. So first for Mr. Heidorn, am I saying your name correctly?

Yes.

Okay. How are other jurisdictions' ethics commissions comprised?

There are a variety of different methods, but what you do see in this proposal is looking at some of the best practices pulled from a number of them. So one of the most common features you see is you never want one person to be appointing a majority of the board, which you see reflected here. So diversifying who the appointors are ensures that the commission is not seen as being beholden to one official. Another thing you see growing in ethics commissions and seeing other related kind of independent bodies is what we sometimes call commission self-selection or a public application process. That's where people apply to serve on the commission and existing commissioners vet the application and then appoint them. So that's one of the other important layers in terms of structure to ensuring independence.

And have ethics commissions in other jurisdictions been able to maintain independence with commissioners being appointed by elected officials? And if so, how did they do that?

Yeah, most ethics commissions have at least a subset of the appointments coming from elected officials. And kind of as I mentioned in the prior one, one of the ways that you ensure independence is by ensuring that each person is only appointed by, say, one or two elected officials, and you spread who's appointing it. So no individual feels unduly kind of beholden to someone else. The other thing I'd mention as a former executive director of a commission is one of the first things that we do is bring in commissioners and explain, you know, you were appointed by this person and that's what gives you your charge. But ultimately, now you're sitting in a position in some sense kind of like a jury and impartiality is key to your role as a commissioner and being sure that you're looking at the facts of any administrative prosecution that comes before you and deciding on that in that manner.

And is that what you see in practice?

Yes, it is. In my two and a half years in Oakland, I would say our commission was fully impartial, despite the fact that about half our commissioners were appointed by elected officials.

Okay, now for county council. Are all county commissions required to have an appointing authority, and what body serves as that appointing authority?

Sure. Under the current charter, the board is the authority in the county. And so commissions, while commissions may be selected in different matters so that you receive nominees and then you formally appoint them, all the commissioners are appointed by the board.

Is there any exception to that?

I don't believe there's any exception to that. You were the ultimate authority here.

Okay. RLA recommended that commissioners be selected through an independent community-centered process that removes elected officials from direct appointment authority. Under current law, is that possible? And if so, how?

We're sorry, Supervisor. We were conferring. Can you repeat that question, please? Sure.

RLA recommended that commissioners be selected through an independent community-centered process that removes elected officials from direct appointment authority. Under current law, is that possible? And if so, how?

That would not be possible under current law. Your board has the ultimate authority and duty to select those commissioners.

Okay.

And just to correct my last statement, you said, has there ever been a commission that was not appointed by the board? Ms. Harrison correctly pointed out to me, the Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission in 2020, which drew the new districts for the supervisors, was not selected by this board, but that was not a county commission. I know people sometimes get confused. That was a commission under state law.

So the authority was state law in that case?

Correct. It was state law that mandated that.

Understood. So, I believe we have heard the GRTF's concerns about allowing two law enforcement elected officials having appointing authority on the Ethics Commission. I want to acknowledge that. The motion before us is about accountability and parity, and as for independents, those overseeing our ethics compliance must also be accountable. But that said, I want to acknowledge this discussion is exactly, in my view, the point of Measure G. to strengthen county government through robust public discussion about accountability, transparency, and good governance. I don't believe today will be the end of that conversation, and one of the parts of Measure G I'm most excited about is the Charter Review Commission, which will continue evaluating and recommending reforms to strengthen our governance structure over time, outside of and apart from Measure G, including the work of this first ever Independent Ethics Commission. So I look forward to hearing what my colleagues think and also from members of the public today as we have this conversation. Thank you very much.

Very well. Supervisor Mitchell.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And I want to thank the members of the panel for being here. And I want to acknowledge the painstaking detail and arduous work and the hours that the task force has put in thus far. We see you and I deeply appreciate you. I think it's going to be really important for me and the public that we are having an apples to apples, I think, conversation today. Your presentation focused on your recommendation, which is not the actual motion before us. The actual motion before us is different. So I want to make sure we are all clear about the motion before us as opposed to what was presented. So let me just start with a couple of questions and then I'll go into my comments. To whoever would like to answer, do you have any concerns with the motion before us? I appreciate you talked about the process you went through to come up with your recommendation, the research, the comparisons, the evaluation of existing ethics commissions, the comment was just made that you felt very confident in terms of the independence of the commission that you had the privilege of serving, where half of the appointees had been appointed by elected officials. I think the motion before us would make it five of the seven instead of three of the seven is your recommendation. So it's different. So are there any concerns with the actual motion before us that any of you would like to talk about? In that it is significantly different from what you're recommending to us.

Our recommendations came from an extensive number of conversations and compromise. There were certainly individuals with varying opinions on a whole host of issues. And ultimately, because of the way the task force was created under Measure G, We knew that to be here today, to get recommendations to you, we had to get to a supermajority. And this was what all of our, well, the vast majority, a supermajority of our members all agreed upon. But there was definitely significant discussion and debate.

but a super majority of the task force did vote and approve the recommendation that you're bringing forward.

That is correct.

Based on the research that you conducted, is the proposed amendment to have five of the seven members appointed by elected officials consistent with the best practices for independent ethics commissions that you've evaluated?

As Mr. Heidorn laid out, actually many independent commissions have appointments from all elected officials. If we compare even to the city of Los Angeles, that does not have seven members. It has five members. All of the appointees to the Ethics Commission for the city of Los Angeles come from elected officials. I don't know if you want to add more on others, but.

No, just to agree with that. What we see with ethics commissions is kind of a wide palette of how they achieve independence. And what we attempted to do with this proposal was layer in a lot of those best practices to kind of create a holistic product that draws from some of the best practices we saw in different cities.

Again, in the proposal you brought forward, not the motion that's up for consideration.

The one that we presented is where we are drawing all those different elements into.

And I'll just add, I had the privilege of working with many of my scholar colleagues from across Los Angeles to help strengthen the Los Angeles City Ethics Commission back in 2024. And to achieve independence for the city of Los Angeles, one of the key components was about having a set budget, ensuring that there was financial support for the Ethics Commission that could not be removed or taken away. So that was actually one of the key components for independence in that regard was less so about the nominators, but more so about Where the the finances would come from and ensuring that there would be a budget to keep that independence so in the

additional referendum that you're suggesting, would you include finance? Because as we know, in Measure G, it was clear that there would be no additional burden or cost to taxpayers. So in the new ordinance, would you be asking for that kind of protection with regard to the budget?

Yes, we absolutely would. We don't anticipate that that needs to come from new taxes or new revenues per se, but our hope is that that would be found within the existing work of the county. And we have done some of the initial work to look at where much of the ethics work is happening within the county currently. Our proposal thinks about ways in which we can bring much of that work together under one single umbrella. with that ethics commission that can have a public facing component to it, which currently is lacking within the county.

And do you have an idea about a price tag? I'm sorry? Do you have an idea about costs or a price tag?

Yes, we do. Do you want to talk about that?

So we did a, after identifying the likely positions of the ethics commission, which we came out to about 54 FTE, we then took the kind of the comparable or the positions that you would see in the traditional ethics commission and working with the executive office, we translated that into about equivalent county positions. So we came up with a cost of about 14.3 million.

Thank you for that.

A quick question for County Council. I know there's been some discussion between GRTF and County Council regarding whether some of their recommendations can be implemented. So can you give us a sense of how closely the ordinance and charter amendment will reflect the detailed recommendations of the task force?

Yes, Supervisor, the ordinance will deviate from the recommendation in terms of the appointment authority for the compliance officer. There's also some concerns about the ability to set salary of the compliance officer and legal counsel for the compliance officer due to the current provisions of the county charter. Those would require a charter amendment to effectuate. Those are some of the primary differences.

So we've also learned, really frankly, kind of the hard way in the past that even a charter amendment can't override conflicting state law provisions. So is there anything in the GRTF's recommendations that can't be adopted even if placed on a charter amendment?

Yes. So there are a couple of things. The commission initiated ballot measures. I believe part of the recommendation is that the Ethics Commission be allowed to place measures on the ballot. That appears to conflict with state law. There was also the provision for during and post-service restrictions conflicting with state law that prohibits limits on political activity of a county officials? OK.

I'm asking these questions not because I'm not supportive of an ethics commission. I absolutely am. But I think one of the challenges I felt with Measure G was the sense of rush. And so having these conversations I think now in the open is really important to make sure we get it right. I don't think the voters want to have to vote on new elements every election cycle because we didn't do our due diligence on the front end of making sure that we are clear about if we are in violation of state law and what needs to go in a charter amendment to make it work. So thank you for answering those questions. As my colleague stated, this is really an important and historic day for LA County, and given the central importance of independence and establishing the Ethics Commission and Compliance Office, I really am concerned about the difference of the recommendation that's been brought for us from the GRTF compared to the motion that's before me to vote on today. and the changes to the recommended composition and independence of the ethics commission members. You know, I noted as you all presented, we use the word independence frequently. And you have to wonder what the voting public thought when they were voting on Measure G, what they were really getting in this concept of an ethics commission. This is the most substantial recommendation that you've brought forward thus far. I know your previous recommendation came in the form of a board letter, and implementing this recommendation is requiring a motion. I understand that that was what you all felt was best given the multi-layers as opposed to a board letter. And I want to acknowledge, as my team reviewed, as we watched your deliberations in real time and then went back and reviewed, You have not taken this task lightly. Six meetings, over 14 hours of deliberation. I don't even think that's counting the subcommittee. So you really put a lot of thought into the proposal that you have brought forward and are recommending. During the consideration of placing Measure G in the ballot and throughout the campaign, we repeatedly heard about the importance of having the GRTF lead implementation and address the many significant questions needed to turn the broad language of Measure G into reality. And as soon as Measure G passed, as the will of the voters, I leaned in to offer a thoughtful, detailed structure for the GRTF given how critical your role was going to be, including strengthening your independence by having five members selected through a community-driven public application process rather than direct appointment. We also required that recommendations be passed by a supermajority to promote deliberation among diverse voices and reach thoughtful consensus. And I worked with Supervisor Horvath to come together and advance that framework for the task force. I thought that was really important. And as I said, in public meetings that stretch well into the evening, as well as your subcommittees, you have really debated the gritty details of this ethics structure, including specifically considering various appointment options before arriving at your recommendation. And so it's clear that you have thoughtfully and intentionally engaged community stakeholders and incorporated their feedback as well. So I believe ultimately you did your work as envisioned, first by the authors of Measure G and then by the board in setting up your operating framework. I also read the letter and understand why our LA coalition, one of the several coalitions and civic groups engaged throughout the process, has now written into, and I quote, expressed their deep discontent and disappointment regarding today's motion to alter the GRTS proposed draft ordinance that goes against community's voice and stance. Beyond the process concerns about undermining your work, the substance of the changes proposed in this motion are also concerning. By flipping the balance of the Ethics Commission so that a majority of the members would be appointed by elected officials who are subject to the Ethics Commission's enforcement and oversight, we would undermine both the real and perceived independence of the Commission, especially when community members and the GRTF consistently raise this issue before reaching your consensus recommendation. We reviewed the video of your deliberations. We have a clip that we may run showing the conversation of what people say.

Maybe a line just to make sure that we are being very adamant with our recommendation that, you know, when Measure J got passed. and they created the CFCI Advisory Committee, the community was very adamant about making sure that whatever the County Council came up with was mirroring what Measure J said, right? And so like you all have done a fantastic job here. And so whatever ordinance they come up with should mirror exactly what we're saying and not left up into interpretation on any aspects of, you know what I mean? I don't know, we can't tell County Council what to do, but I just feel like we should just be very adamant about like, we did the work, we did the homework on this. There's no reason to like reinvent things out of your own interpretation of what we have here.

I want to know how independent we are. I suffer from Lucera's Issues with independence, and I want to see that independence really be codified or part of this draft so that we don't run into. Lengthy lawsuits trying to figure out what we said we don't want to have. Issues come up where we may have left something out. Something was misinterpreted.

So, I just wanted to know that going back to just creating that trust with who gets selected as that was 1 of the main points from the, from the public. And I think that we've heard quite a bit.

We have thoroughly been following every step of the way, the ethics compliance pieces. We heard the community at the forum. We were there. We gave our input. We are in alignment with what was posted in the draft. I think bifurcating it will be incredibly confusing and unnecessary at this point. We are in alignment with the appointment model that has been proposed. So just wanted to express that on behalf of our coalition. And again, thank you for the work that you guys have are doing so far.

We very much heard the feedback from the community session on March 7th. We discussed at length amongst the subcommittee around the pros and cons of having a seven member commission that is completely self selected out of an applicant pool versus having some appointments. Where we ultimately landed was that mixed appointments set up. But similar to what the community had said, to have the future elected executive, to have the board chair and the assessor be those appointing powers, and to have the remaining four, so the majority of that commission, to be from that self-select pool.

So I really just wanted to, we reviewed, really wanted to bring into this discussion today your words, the work of the commission to really, again, support the recommendation that GRTF is bringing forward. And I think whatever one's feelings about the sheriff and the district attorney may be, the GRTF had extensive and robust discussions about community concerns regarding conflicts of interest, as well as the practical considerations of balancing appointed seats versus commission-selected seats while keeping the overall size of the commission manageable. So in bringing forward the recommendation on the Ethics Commission, the GRTF really has done everything I think that we envisioned. To be clear, the buck ultimately stops with us, the board. If the GRTF were to send us recommendations that raise serious legal concerns or clearly fail to account for important principles or practical considerations, we may need to adopt a revised version, but that's not the case here. They brought forward a recommendation that was well vetted, that is in keeping with their research on ethics commissions throughout the state. I think in cluster, this motion wasn't discussed. It was yet another kind of expansion upon your motion that raised concerns. And it's my sense the motion before us goes above and beyond what was referenced in cluster. So it feels like we're getting further away from the recommendation that you all worked on and brought forward. Again, I think throughout the campaign for Measure G, the voters were promised, and I quote, reforms for the people led by the people, end quote. And with the Governance Reform Task Force as the central vehicle to fulfill that promise, And so you have led and these recommendations reflect hard work, serious thought and intentional inclusion and community voice. And so as a result, colleagues, I propose amending the motion before us to advance the GRTF's recommendation without the changes to the appointment process. Specifically, in Directive 5, subsection A, strike the second to the last sentence regarding changing the makeup of the Ethics Commission and the references to the DA and the sheriff in the last sentence. Similarly, in Directive 5, subsection B, strike everything after the words, the board's consideration. Finally, in the attached list of timelines also strike the references to appointees by the sheriff and DA. With these amendments, we would move forward to the next steps of implementing the ethics commission and compliance officer without undermining or second guessing the extensive work the GRTF has done and brought forward today in their presentation. Thanks, Madam Chair. Thank you.

Supervisor Hahn.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Isn't this exciting? It really is. I remember serving on the Charter Reform Commission of the city of Los Angeles in 1992. It was the first elected job I ever had, and we basically reformed the city's 75-year-old charter, and I really relate to you all. We held meetings at night, long meetings, and it was grueling. It was a volunteer position. I don't even think we got a stipend. I think we had to pay for our own dinners, but it was very exciting because you're really You're ground zero for crafting something that would live until the next charter reform movement, I think, which is happening now in the city of LA. But you are really chartering, no pun intended, a new course forward. So thank you to the GRTF. for your work. Thank you for the subcommittee, particularly on this issue. Appreciate it. I know Marcel Rodarte has been consumed with being a part of GRTF. He has some friends that they go out for breakfast regularly, and they're sick of hearing about GRTF. They don't want to hear one more thing about it. And that's all he thinks about. That's all he talks about. But that's kind of fun for all of you that are sitting on that. You know, as Lindsey, you talked about this morning, you also talked about it at the seminar that we were at this weekend, about how this is the first time, which is surprising to a lot of people, first time the county of Los Angeles has ever had an ethics commission. You would think that would be so basic. to a good form of government, that that would have happened before now. But this is the first time that we've ever had that. And it really was because of the vote of the people of LA County, right? Because you all know how many times my dad even put forward the expansion of the board. He always thought there should be more than five supervisors. And it had gone to the voters several times and failed every single time. What piqued the voters' interest this time on Measure G was the checks and balances of adding an elective county executive, but it was also this ethics commission. I think they felt like if they voted for this sort of new form of county government, at least at the foundation of this would be a commission that made it their sole responsibility to make sure that we were all operating ethically. And that's, I believe, one of the key reasons Measure G passed. And I think a lot of the reasons were that people mistrust government and the people that lead it. And many times they don't feel like they've been adequately represented. I think you're seeing that a lot in elections across the country. Even long-term incumbents are being ousted because people have lost some faith in their government, in their elected official. And I think Measure G really aimed to look at that, specifically the trust between its people and its government. And I think the GRTF really became that how things happened in Measure G. Measure G was kind of a global 30,000 feet up, and then we tossed it to you to come up with how this is going to be implemented. And some of the recommendations that you presented today are good, and I appreciate them, and I like them. But I honestly felt just slightly disappointed, I'll just be honest, in the recommendations for who should sit on this ethics commission. Your recommendation was that the GRTF, until the elected executive comes in, would have an appointment. The elected assessor would have an appointment. The chair of the County Board of Supervisors would have an appointment. And even that original recommendation to me felt like it missed the mark a little bit about this This huge desire from the voters for this of all commissions to be completely independent. I mean, even in your recommendations, you're like your North Star, right? To ensure fairness and maintain public trust, the commission must be politically independent and insulated. And I just don't see those two concepts living together. I don't know how we deliver independence when the very electeds that this commission will oversee and check for corruption and misconduct get to appoint their representatives on it. And I also looked at the two versions of Supervisor Horvath's motion. First version was removing GRTF's ability to appoint and giving the chair of the board of supervisors two appointees and the assessor, the elected assessor, an appointee. And the second version allowed GRTF, the chair of the board, the sheriff, the elected chair of the board of supervisors, the elected sheriff, and the elected DA, and the elected assessor each appoint one. So we kind of went from... the ratio of three electeds to four non-electeds to five electeds and two non-electeds. And I feel like, honestly, the independence is missing in these different variations. And I also think it reduces any real opportunity for the public to sit on this commission. I know we're probably never gonna get 100% independence, even though I think we should strive for that. But when I look back at what I think is the one commission that was as independent as it was gonna get, was the 2021 County Citizens Redistricting Commission, which was modeled after the state. And I know you might have looked at it, and I'd be interested to hear your comments, but some of us remember, right, five years ago, there was a set of qualifications. The public, if they felt like they met the qualifications, could apply. And then... our registrar recorder, as I recall, went through, I believe there was something like 700 applications. And our register recorder went through all of those and made sure he picked a pool of those who were qualified. I think it got down to 60 that you said were qualified. And then of those, there was a random selection. I feel like there were balls involved. And they chose the first, I want to say eight, from these balls of qualified people. And it was like a lottery. And then those folks picked the next six out of the qualified pool. And I remember when I first saw who had been chosen to sit on the redistricting commission, most of those people were not known by anybody. They didn't have any connection to elected officials. Most of us were scrambling. We're thinking, oh my God, who are these people? And they're gonna chart the next maps of the districts. And yet, to me, that was independent, and it was called the Independent Redistricting Commission. And I think that's what we should strive for. we should allow much more public engagement. Because I know that you guys heard from coalitions representing diverse groups, geographic areas, issue areas, calling for real independence on this commission and calling for the public not just to engage with the commission, but to be part of this historic independent ethics commission. And I think it's true. I think now, particularly with Measure G, with Measure J, our community has evolved. They're sophisticated and they don't want to just engage. They want to be at the table. They want to have a seat at the table going forward. And not just a couple of seats. To me, we should have the entire commission made up of this type of independent public who have no ties to an elected official. This is the first time we're gonna do this. There may be changes down the road, but this is the first time, and I really want us to get it right. And if it gets codified in the county charter, even more so, we need to get it right. So I've heard some discussion over here and with county council, can this independent redistricting commission, I mean, I'm sorry, thank you, this independent ethics commission be modeled after the county independent redistricting commission in 2021?

Yes, Supervisor, your board could designate a county official AND DEPARTMENT AS RESPONSIBLE FOR RECEIVING THE APPLICATIONS, VETTING THEM FOR QUALIFICATIONS AND DOING A RANDOM SELECTION, THAT RANDOM SELECTION COULD COME TO THE BOARD AS SORT OF THE MINISTERIAL FINAL ACTION TO CONFIRM THOSE APPOINTMENTS TO THE COMMISSION.

I mean, honestly, as the co-author of Measure G, that was what I was hoping for. I don't think if you have anyone on this commission appointed by an elected official, you can insulate that feeling that you're independent. It just... Doesn't make sense, even if the first layer, which has got some electeds appointed, and then they appoint, even out of a public, pool that all still goes back it's got a tie to an elected official and i just want so much for this commission to be a model and maybe nobody else has done it anywhere else you know uh and maybe all the best practices are fine and and they survived and were independent in in Oakland or wherever. But we're so different. And we've got a chance to be different. And we've got a chance to set out a new model that then others, maybe when they begin establishing similar independent commissions, they can say, the best practice we found was L.A. County. This is how they did it, and it is a success from the standpoint of being completely independent. I know you're going to probably want to say you looked at it and decided against it. I don't know if I want to hear that, but go ahead.

We looked at it and decided against it.

Okay, I'm reclaiming my time.

I can't speak on behalf of everyone. As I mentioned before, these recommendations were a compromise based on a number of varying interests amongst the members of the task force. I can say that I had the great privilege of serving on the Redistricting Commission for the State of California in 2021. I think that would present a lot of challenges, especially to the very first ethics commission to be placed. They have an enormous amount of work cut out for them in terms of the creation of various policies and procedures. But ultimately, these recommendations were agreed upon by the super majority of the task force.

Yeah, I hear you. And I know Supervisor Mitchell is leaning into that aspect of what's before us. But I just feel in a county of 10 million people, we will be able to find seven people who have the qualifications, who have the passion, who have the honesty that will take to make up this first commission. So I was going to add my amendment to the growing list and it basically says I would like for the GRTF to go back to the drawing board and take another hard look at the independent redistricting commission and see if we can get closer to that kind of independent. And I think we would have to, I've added some qualifications but you all can come up with better ones. I think Dean Logan was a great better of 700 applications originally don't know if he wants that job again. But again, this is the GRTF comes up with the house and the wise and is it possible. So that's my amendment colleagues is that we try to take one more stab. at being completely independent for this first ever Independent Ethics Commission. Thank you, Madam Chair.

OK, Supervisor Barger.

Thank you. And thank you, Supervisor Horvath, for bringing this forward. I believe that this motion actually builds on what the board has envisioned as it relates to this ethics commission. But I will say, I had them pull the charter, and it makes clear independent ethics commission. And I guess my question would be to the voters, what is your definition of independent? Because that is my concern. I feel as though this board, we all file 700 forms, as does the assessor. And so one could argue that we are conflicted as it relates to who we appoint. I'm not saying that's fact, I'm just saying one could argue that. And when you look at the title, Los Angeles County, its proposed charter amendment is Los Angeles County Government Structure Ethics and Accountability Charter Amendment.

Ethics is what sold this charter.

ethics because people are sick and tired of picking up the paper and reading about another elected official that's either taken bribes or done something unethical and compromised that position. So I hear you, Supervisor Hahn, but I also want to acknowledge Supervisor Mitchell's point as it relates to the work that's put into this. And I want to thank you all. And I definitely want to thank my appointee, John Fasana, who we brought out of retirement and who now, I think, realizes how great retirement is, for the work that you've done. And I do appreciate the voices and points of view we've heard from many regarding the commission's appointment structure. One of the most important aspects of a successful ethics commission, in my opinion, is ensuring that it's balanced and free from conflicts of interest. Seems like an obvious, right? But to many, I think they're always looking for that opportunity. I think that's why the city of L.A. is revisiting this issue. Because over time, you have holes that you could drive a truck through. And that's what you're seeing happen. I also want to ensure, when we do this, that we are adhering to the fidelity of what the voters approved and that we are transparent in how we are allocating any funds toward government reform, especially if it means that these funds could mean that we have to make tough decisions as it relates to programs and services for our constituents. I want to make sure that in no way are services cut as a result. And I will note that County Council's estimate came in far greater than what you all settled on as it relates to the estimated budget. But I guess I have a question for you, Joe Nikita. This motion directs county departments and the CEO to allocate the necessary funding to implement the ethics commission and the office of ethics compliance. How does the CEO plan to fund the ethics commission and the Office of Ethics Compliance, which I think is estimated, what, 34 employees? Is that what you're at? 54 employees? 54 employees. Would any of this funding come out of county-wide resources, or is there a specific fund that will cover the cost of governance?

Thank you for that question, Supervisor. And first of all, I want to thank the GRTF for the report.

Into the mic, please. Thanks.

Yes, I'll do my best, Supervisor. So thank you. Oh, now it's too loud. So I want to thank the GRTF for their thoughtful report. I've reviewed it in detail along with my team who's sitting behind me. And I do want to acknowledge it is very well-reasoned, thoughtful, and gives us a very clean roadmap for what they're expecting based on what the board will order later in this item. We have four pillars at CEO that we're following when we implement the directives of the GRTF and of the board. And those are labor. Classification, compensation, and budget. So on labor, we do have some directive to evaluate positions in other departments that may transfer if those are represented positions. There's a labor process we have to follow. Classification and compensation, we do have countywide standards. I'm very appreciative of the list of classifications that were offered to our department as part of this report. When we look at the classifications, there are some things in eye of implementing the the recommendations and the desires of the GRTF. We may have some modifications to those classifications. One to ensure, for example, they want some positions to be at will. That makes perfect sense. Some of the recommended classifications are lower than an at-will position, so we'd make recommendations to modify those. We want to ensure promotability within the commission so that people aren't dead-ending into these individual classifications. That's the other pillar and then the final final pillar is budget supervisor The first thing we will look at are the positions that are being requested to transfer over So we're looking at auditor controller. We're looking to register our recorder the executive office and then Pending a I believe pending a charter amendment also at County Council one of the things to note is that we know that those positions are in part revenue offset and So some of these positions do not have dedicated funding behind them. They charge other departments for the service. So, for example, we'll use OCI as an example. Part of their positions are funded with revenue because when they do work investigating something that happened in a department, there will be a chargeback. Not all of it, but a component of it.

Are any of them subvened?

When we talk about charging other departments, that is the subvention element, correct. Okay. So we have that element to look at. So we're gonna first look at how much funding we plan to bring over. Then I think there's a policy question, Supervisor, for the board, which is, given the desire to have an independent ethics commission, are we okay with a chargeback model? There is some element that the work that they're doing, if you're charging the work that you're doing, you don't need to find new resources for it, like go into the budget and find the resources but there is a concern about does it have a protected budget source. So that's just a policy issue I think we'll confront. Supervisor, on your last question, where is the money gonna come from? We will have to look within the county budget based on the Measure G requirements. So I have my cheat sheet for what Measure G requires, and I will acknowledge that there is some confusion as to how to implement these particular mandates from Measure G. So Measure G focused on implementation costs, and it said that implementation costs must be necessary, I'm cribbing, necessary, limited, funded with existing county funding sources, like property taxes, result in no additional cost to taxpayers, result in no additional taxes imposed on taxpayers with any implementation costs offset by cost savings. The question and some of the confusion I think we will confront as we dig into creating the new Ethics Commission is, what is an implementation cost? What does that mean? And because Measure G only places the limitation on implementation costs, we have to focus on that list of requirements that I just mentioned for the implementation costs alone. Our auditor controller has given some parameters for that. Those were provided to the voters as part of the fiscal statement for what an implementation cost means, but I will say that it does not include under that analysis, and we've adopted that analysis for the purpose of... That's a one-time cost. Those are the one-time costs. It wouldn't include ongoing revenue. Okay, so we're... But where does that leave us ultimately on where is the money coming from? Supervisor, I think what our office would do as a first cut is to see if there are savings, ongoing savings that can be repurposed for the ethics commission. I think that meets the spirit of what the voters approved. If that's not possible, Supervisor, we'd have to come to your board with a recommendation to allocate other ongoing costs. It could be new revenue. It could be other funding sources to get the commission to have that base funding level that the GRTF has recommended.

But if we've, if the voters voted on something that is not an additional cost, then we can go around that?

For implementation costs, we cannot. We cannot. So our recommendations will adhere to the restrictions on implementation costs. But when you come down to, those are the one-time costs. When you come down.

No, I understand, but have you quantified what the one-time costs are?

the one-time costs as we haven't quantified them but i'll give you how can you say i mean are you going to find the money is it county-wide services or is that going to be billed back to the departments when when we have the first time we were asked to fund something under measure g was last march and it was the grtf and the grtf was funded was considered one-time implementation costs and we funded it with available fund balance so the department had In particular, the executive office of the board had leftover funding. We rolled it over in their budget, and they used it for supporting the GRTF. That is very likely going to be our playbook. Available fund balance that is in the budget now that is available to repurpose, we would use for one-time costs. For ongoing costs, as this board is well aware, we have very difficult fiscal constraints that are really limiting what we can fund and where we can find ongoing costs. So we will have to go back in the budget and figure out a way to bring this to life within the parameters of Measure G, but also without, the goal would be not to cut services and programs in order to do this. I don't think that's what.

Well, then that question would then go to Don. Don, if that were the case, does that violate Measure G?

I think what I'm hearing is that the CEO is going to make it a point of trying to find existing resources. The voters voted on no additional expense to the voters. I just want to get it on the record, because I think it's important to ensure that the voters know. We cannot impose any additional costs on the voters. OK. And Oscar, do you want to add anything?

Yes. I think just for clarification, I know Joe mentioned that for our Office of County Investigation, All of our costs are funded through direct charges to the department. We do not have any net county costs going into those. We may be using some of our NCC because we're doing some internal reviews or a specific mandate from the board where we may be using either RNCC or PFU dollars. everything is billable. So we really don't have any savings per se from NCC on those areas. Going back to the fiscal impact statement, you know, our position was that I think we estimated $8 million for one-time implementation costs based on the most available information that we had. We're getting to these policy decisions that we referenced in our statement that would require future discussions and additional calls for ongoing to be determined at a later date, but- Is that the way you normally do it though? That was our first fiscal impact statement that the auditor controller did as part of the-

I think that that's not the ideal way to do it, though. Wouldn't you agree? I mean, it is what it is. Right. But you're building a plane while you're flying it.

Right. And at least, sure, we got notification a couple of weeks before it needed to be finalized. So I think it was a rushed process. And based on the information that we had, we came up with a $8 million for the one-time implementation, but that it needed future policy decisions from the board to identify future costs ongoing.

Supervisor, can I just go back to what we put in our memo in March of 2025 when we first approached our first ever attempt to fund something under Measure G? We said in that memo was we would follow, we outlined the requirements of Measure G and we walked through it in pretty close detail. What we said is we are adopting the analysis that the auditor controller put the fiscal impact statement that was with the ballot. So the voters saw it, that's what they understood when they voted. And under that fiscal impact statement, only the one-time implementation costs are to be cost limited under Measure G. The ongoing costs are not subject to the same restriction. I've heard various things along the way said about what Measure G means. Our office's intent is to follow the path that we laid out under that memo in March of 2025. If there is a different understanding from this board or a different legal interpretation, I think it's important that we get that clear direction so that we can calibrate how we're approaching the funding. Right now, we have a roadmap. But if there is a lack of agreement with how we're doing that, and that could include finding some ongoing money, new ongoing resources to pay for ongoing salaries, if that is going to be something that the board feels is not what the voters intended when they voted, then I would ask the board for clearer direction so that when we move forward, we can adhere to what this board believes is the requirements under Measure G. So, you know, I mean, the more I think about it, you're talking countywide services, but Measure G actually...

impacts governance in both the CEO and the Board of Supervisors. So why wouldn't those two entities be charged with covering the cost? Why is that being passed on to departments?

That's one component of it. And I think when we're looking at the Ethics Commission in general, I'll answer it this way. As we approach the creation of the new entities, like the new elected executive and expansion of the board, we have to first look within the departments to see what can be repurposed. On the ethics commission in particular, if the directive is to find the funding from within the CEO and the executive office, it will result in curtailments to the department to fund this new entity. So we'd have to go through our curtailment process essentially to do that.

I guess that's a debate for another time. But currently, when we file our 700 forms, who reviews those and who ensures that we are acting ethically right now.

Each department is responsible for collecting the form 700 forms, I believe. Who checks them? We submit them centrally to the executive officer. And then what happens?

Then my office collects it. And I'd have to check with my assistant executive officer.

Yeah, I think that's really important to note. I'm curious to know what we do with those 700 forms. I mean, who actually ensures right now, I mean, that in fact we're complying with 700? I know we get notified if we're late, but in terms of the content, who does checking on that, or don't we?

Let me have Kelly Johnson, the Assistant Executive Officer, approach the...

Okay, and then in closing, I'll just say, I mean, I support the issue regarding Ethics Commission. I believe that... And I think we tried to bring something in before this measure or this ballot passed. Because in fact, unfortunately, I think it is a necessity. But I will say that either you have it or you don't. And those that don't have ethics are always looking for a way to work around the current structure. And you only have to look down the street to see individuals who actually were convicted with an ethics commission in place. And so I'm hoping that whatever is put together, we recognize that that is not gonna be the panacea, that there's always gonna be, I mean, if someone wants to break the law, they're gonna figure out a way to get around it, unfortunately. And that's, to me, a sad testimony to why people go into public service. I know that everyone on this dais goes into public service because you genuinely care about your constituents. And and so, you know, I'm I'm excluding you all from that discussion. But there's always potential down the road. You never know. And then in closing, I just also want to acknowledge out in the audience. I saw where David David Green leave. Oh, he's right back there. And all of the commission and you all, I know that the subcommittee put in a lot of time. I talked to David yesterday who talked about the amount of time that's been put into this. So I know that you all understand that this debate is not reflective of the job that you did. It's more reflective of us trying to vet it. And we all come from different lens, but we all have the same goal in mind. And then last but not least, Dean, I wouldn't wish this upon, I mean, you've got enough on your plate, for goodness sakes, but if that is the will of this board, I know that you are very capable. We've seen what you've done on redistricting, and there's no question in my mind that you are incredibly capable. Thank you, Madam Chair. And then we'll wait for the answer on that, because I do want to know, that concerns me that we don't know with current 700 forms. Oh, you're right there, okay.

Go ahead. Good afternoon. Thank you. Good afternoon, supervisors. There's some mystery around it because it is bifurcated. There are actually Form 700s that are handled by the Registered Recorder and Form 700s handled by the Executive Office. Those Form 700s handled by the Executive Office are also bifurcated. For instance, supervisors form 700s are sent directly to the FPPC and the FPPC is then reviewing the supervisors form 700s. However, for other department heads, Chiefs, it is the executive office, and we are the place that is fielding the questions for your form 700s. If there's any concerns, not knowing what to file on there, it is our office that's assisting with that information. So it's layered, but in terms of your form 700, it goes directly to FPPC for review.

So just out of curiosity, with the executive officer, how many 700 forms, have you all flagged that there may be a problem or something that doesn't pass the smell test?

I can tell you, Supervisor, that Annually, we are following up with anywhere between 25 to 50 individuals about information that is either incomplete, unclear, or may raise questions with regard to not having the appropriate information filed.

Good. Good. All right. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Before I turn it over for another round, I just want to remind people of time. I know this has been a really robust discussion, and I appreciate it, but I first of all want to thank the Government's Reform Task Force itself and all the members, the folks that are here in the audience, and to those that are not here able to come because they have a day job. But they do volunteer, and I want to stress that. I want to thank our chair, Sarah, and Vice Chair Rosa. You guys have been through, from my perspective, hell and high water. And I don't think that's an understatement. And I know that also my appointee, Brian Tabataba, I don't see him here, but I know he has been a big part of this. And this is not an easy plan or a straightforward line that all of us have followed, because it is hard. This is new. It is exciting. But at the same time, I feel that... there are still more things that we're going to learn. And I think we have to look at this as a fluid body. Even though we want things to be so determined and in cement, it doesn't work like that. That's not the real world. And as much as we want to talk about having independence, I, for one, yeah, I want independence for me. But I also want to know that the reality is that sometimes just because you say it's independent, it isn't always that clear to the public. And I will go back to previously the state independent commission that did the redistricting. Honestly, I saw a lot from a distance while we could not be a part of it. learned that there was many influences that were happening that for me, I'm not going to say what it is, but I will just say that I had a lot of doubt about the direction of that redistricting commission. And there was a lot of outside influence that you could not safeguard from. And it had nothing to do with some of the members that made it made up that body, but people who were coming in from the outside in an organized fashion and just hitting and hitting and hitting on certain topics and then somehow feeling that that's the sentiment of everybody in the county and it really wasn't. And I'm happy that at least that worked out in some way because I feared then that we weren't gonna see the makeup of new districts to truly represent for me equity. And that's always been my North Star, equity and balance. So I say that only to say that not every independent commission is independent from my perspective. But I also wanna say that this task force has really worked really hard to come up with these recommendations and I appreciate that. And when I saw names of who would be able to appoint the assessor, not the assessor, I'm sorry, registrar, all the, the elected, I'm sorry, elected people, including the board chair. Who's gonna be the board chair at that time? What politics is that going to influence, right? We don't know, but I mean, these are things that are being talked about, okay? And I understand that the recent, the recent motion that is presented by Supervisor Horvath would now include elected officials who could make appointments. And then we hear from county council that there really is no official or legal problem with that. And as was said by this panel, that in many instances, it does work. Where you do because someone is appointed doesn't mean that that influence is going to be detrimental. And I think that that seems to be kind of the cloud that's hanging over this discussion, that somehow appointments, whatever it is, is going to be maybe a bad appointment. one that would compromise ethics. And I don't know that that's necessarily true, because I know I happen to have a lot of commissioners that I appoint to things, and sometimes I appoint them because of their expertise or their commitment. And that's what I would want to look for. People that are going to be fair, but also be equitable, but also represent, I think, sentiment of a larger population. And sometimes that doesn't always happen on commissions. We know that. But nothing is going to be perfect. And I understand that. This is a really hard discussion, though, to have right now. I'll be honest with you. But I do wanna piggyback on some questions that Supervisor Barger raised and also our CEO and that is about how we define the rules of how we actually fund this proposition, right? So we have a potential recommendation for positions, and we're looking at what departments may overlap in responsibility. That's kind of a no-brainer, right? However, that may sound good to us, but legally, how do we make sure that we aren't going beyond what the law and the interpretation of the law. So my question is, can we get better clarification, or is this something that will have to come back to us? Because whatever we do today, I wanna have more clarity in how that is going to be organized. And you and I, CEO, had a little discussion, but I think it's important to hear from you and also from county council.

So, Supervisor, specifically with respect to the rules of what we fund and how we fund it under Measure G, I think what we can do is we can convene a meeting with the auditor, controller, and county council and make sure that the way that our office has interpreted the need to fund implementation costs is consistent with what the auditor controller and county council read into the measure as well. If there's any inconsistency, we can come back to the board and follow up, probably in a written memo with modifications to what we have laid out as of March of last year. With respect to ongoing costs, again, those are not restricted by the Measure G requirements that the costs be limited, et cetera, that whole list of requirements I read out. But it has been the practice, going back to the prior CEO, and I intend to continue it, that we would look first to resources that are already within our budget that can be repurposed to create these entities, whether it's from positions that are at auditor control or a registrar recorder for an ethics commission or restructuring the CEO or the board office for when we're looking at those entities as well. And even beyond that, funding that's in the budget that is being underutilized that we don't need for a particular use that we can repurpose without service cuts, that would be number one. That is actually probably our fiscal reality anyway because our new ongoing NCC is so restricted. And then the next step down from there would be if we couldn't find the resources necessary to do the implementation, we would have to look at new ongoing revenue for ongoing costs, not for implementation costs. But we'll have that convening and we'll make sure that we're all on the same page and we'll report back to the board on the outcome of that.

So I would want that to come back to us as part of this, whatever we do today here, to have that so that we have that analysis. That would help clarify a lot for me. And I know we want to hear from our assessor.

Yes, with regards to defining I think we also need to define the process of what the commission is going to be reviewing versus what the audit controller, OCI, is going to be responsible for. We do maintain the county's fraud waste abuse hotline. I mean, if we're just looking at metrics, going back from 2016, we were basically having cases of 200 versus now we're a little bit over 1,000. So those have gone up. roughly 500% and we had actually requested additional positions to build the departments in order to manage the workload. So I want to make sure that we're really having the discussions in regards to who's going to be responsible for what, what hotline are we going to have? Are we going to share the hotline? Are we going to be triaging? Are we going to be sharing information with the commission? I think it's better just to have one hotline so there's no confusion and make sure that that's the initial intake process and how we basically identify, yes, this is within our jurisdiction. know this is within the jurisdiction of the other Commission making sure that we have you know basically transparency and communication one of the other things that we need to make sure is that we're protecting the whistleblowers we have a right to protect the names of those individuals that those names do not somehow get released right we don't want to put ourselves in any type of liability so I think those are other discussions that we need to have and resource wise I We do not have any dedicated position specifically for ethics.

From your department.

Right, but we go based as needed. So I think here we would have to work with the commissioner, with the CEO's office, with county council on that. And I think we also need to introduce DHR because DHR also does some of the investigations regarding ethics and stuff like that.

So as I started out, I said this is a fluid process. in my mind, and that's not to upset anyone out in the public, thinking that, oh, well, we voted on this, and therefore, this is the way it's gonna go. We are implementing it, and as we are implementing it, we're finding out what the real realities are here. So it's going to take back and forth, I think, along with our departments, because some departments will have to provide more positions than others, and then we'll have to figure out how to prioritize that in the budget process, and then negotiations, for classifications, and we may have to upgrade some positions that are already outlined here that because of lack of knowledge on the part of the task force in terms of how the inner workings of the county works, may not have had all the clarity of where positions really ought to be scaled. And I don't mean that as something bad, I'm just saying if we're gonna do it right, we should make sure that we have the best qualified paid positions because this is a very, very important, I believe, part of the whole Measure G. And in second, for me, supporting this initially was the expansion of the board, because I have always been supportive of that, but making sure that there was opportunity for underrepresented groups. alongside the one I am a part of, but also for the AAPI community, which has been disadvantaged for many, many years here in the county. So I remain... fixed on seeing that happen and making sure that we get the best people, implying that outreach information and knowing the nuances of what this job also takes. Because in a matter of years, we're gonna see perhaps a completely different board. Finally, when the day comes that there will be nine members and there may be a lot more discussions And it will be a different situation. So if we can at least start the course correction in the right way, I think that's where I want to go. But I just want to say I do appreciate everything that the group did. I can't even begin to imagine the many hours and splitting of hairs that went on. But I heard about all of it from my staff. So I empathize because these jobs are hard, even when they're volunteer or somewhat volunteered. But thank you again for that. So I appreciate that. Okay, so now we'll go quickly to Supervisor Mitchell and then Supervisor Hahn.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I appreciate the conversation today. First of all, to the auditor controller, you said it was rushed, and I'm sorry for that. I brought forward the fiscal impact statement requirement, realizing that A, the county didn't have one, and B, Measure G was making declarative statements that there would be no new taxes, and we had lots of conversation about then where would the money come from? It was gonna have to come from existing resources, and so that's why I pushed hard on that. I think it was naive at best that only implementation costs were included, naive at best. When you recognize all of the administrative impacts Measure G is bringing forward, we're just talking now about the first creation of a new entity. We've got board expansion. We've got an elected CEO who will build an organization. We've got an LAO. There's lots. So the fact that the $8 million is what was included in the ballot, I think, did the voters a real disservice in understanding what all of the elements of Measure G are actually going to cost us, either in being services and dollars being redirected from current county services or not. And that wasn't the case with Measure A, which was on the same ballot. A fuller fiscal impact was conducted. So I certainly hope, again, sorry about the rush. Again, Measure G is what brought the requirement from my perspective to the table. So I certainly hope... The methodology used on a go forward basis will be much more comprehensive. So we will be clear as a body and the voting public will be clear that it's not only implementation costs, but ongoing costs for whatever change they are voting to make.

And respectfully responding to that, we did do our best analysis, and we did qualify that fiscal impact statement by saying that we anticipated additional costs for ongoing in the tens of millions of dollars, but we could not quantify it at the time.

Thank you. I appreciate where Supervisor Hahn is coming from, since we all acknowledge the importance of independence for the new Ethics Commission. And I'd written a note to myself, Supervisor Barger, to your exact point, how does the general public define independence? What does that word really mean? And what did people think they were voting for? I couldn't agree with you more. You know, however, I go back to my primary issue with the motion before us, which is it, undermines the Governance Reform Task Force recommendation. Who Measure G empowered with doing the work? And we know from their public meetings that they also considered a random drawing selection method as well, which, as you said, was used by the Independent Redistricting Commission, but that is not what came forward in their recommendation. And so I think it would be real challenging from my perspective of how we could expect to make a more thoughtful, considered, informed decision here in real time than the GRTF did in their six meetings and 14 hours plus, plus, plus of deliberation. So again, the amendment I brought forward, just to be clear, was to support what was being presented by the GRTF. It's an amendment to the Horvath motion, so the amendment language strips out the additional language that the Horvath motion brought forward, and so just conceptually for the public to understand, my amendment is to accept the recommendation brought forward, voted on, debated hotly, and ultimately agreed upon with the supermajority, with the general public being included as well. That's the amendment I brought forward, which is the recommendation from the GRTF. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Supervisor Hahn?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, you know, listening to everybody, I did have an amendment, but I haven't read it in yet. But mine was basically to ask the GRTF to go back to the drawing board and look more closely at the amendments. the LA County Redistricting Commission, which I really feel is truly independent. But kind of listening and reading the room, I don't think there's gonna be support for that. And again, no disrespect for the hours and hours and hours. I just felt like if we really wanted to get closer to what the voters wanted, we would strip out having electives have anything to do with it. But reading the room, I don't think there's support for this. So I'm not going to read it in, and I'm not going to introduce it. But check my website for the language. But Madam Chair, what I would ask then is that we could bifurcate all the recommendations and the composition of the makeup of the commission, so two different votes, because I really can't support the composition, their recommendation on the composition the makeup, but I want to support all their other recommendations about this ethics commission.

So can you help us figure out? So you don't want to vote on allowing the seven member?

Yeah, I don't like that piece of it, but all their other recommendations, I like.

Okay, so can we get some idea of what that looks like? Just like a bifurcate, that's

In other words, I don't want the amendment to pass and then we vote on the motion as amended, right? Because then I would... I wanna vote yes on all their recommendations, and I'll probably not support the makeup.

The section. So it might just be we separate out directive five, and we vote as a board, we vote on directive five first, so that way we talk about what we wanna do with the composition of the board, of the commission. That's what she's trying to say. So that's bifurcating it, yeah. And then we'll take it from there. Does that sound right? Okay, so I'm waiting for County Council to acknowledge that, so I see them conferring, but it sounds like what Supervisor Houghton is asking for is for Directive 5 to be voted on separately first, so we are clear about the composition of the commission, and then once we vote on the composition of the commission, then we can vote on the remainder of the motion. Yeah, let's make sure, because... I'm clear about that. Can you clarify?

Directive 5 is the composition that Supervisor Mitchell is also amending.

Yes. So give me one second.

Madam Chair, we also have public comment still. Yes, we should vote on the amendment first.

So there needs to be... Well, it might be accepted as friendly. I want to listen to the public first. Right, of course.

Okay.

But then we could bifurcate.

So let's, you want to go to public comment, then we'll hear from, okay, give us time here. Okay, let's go to public comment.

Will the following individuals please come forward and staff will assist you? Perry Goldberg, Derek Steele. Vanessa Perez, your line is open. Please begin.

Hi, my name is Vanessa Perez. I'm asking I do not override the governance reform task force recommendations, amend the motion to advance what the task force originally recommended without any changes, support an independent ethics commission as promised to the voters by Measure G that has a majority of members not appointed by elected officials, but appointed by the people. As well, I appreciate if Lindsay Horvath stopped trying to add the sheriff and the DA to the new ethics commission created by Measure G. Thank you. My name is Vanessa Perez.

Thank you. Jeremy Payne, your line is open. Please begin.

Hi, my name is Jeremy Payne. I live in Los Angeles County. I am here in support of the GRTF's original recommendations, however, strongly oppose the amendments that were included in Horvath's motion that would allow the Sheriff Department and District Attorney to appoint any members of the commission. I strongly recommend that Los Angeles County adopt a model similar to the LA County Redistricting Commission and the California Citizens Redistricting Commission that fully removes elected officials to the extent possible from the appointment process and relies on public applications, transparent vetting, and randomized selection. With that, I also wanted to share that the community has been clear we want a public community-centered selection process, not political appointments, and that independence means independence, not partial independence or symbolic independence. Thank you for your time, and we hope that you take that into consideration.

Thank you. Janet Asante, your line is open. Please begin.

District 2, and I strongly urge this board to create a true independent ethics commission and not one where we have folks like the DA and the sheriff appointing folks. As we've seen with the Civilian Oversight Commission, when it comes to elected official appointees, You are not immune to influence, and in fact, in many ways, the Sheriff's Department has an oversized influence on our entire county budget, having spent over $1.5 billion in overspend from their allocated budget last year. So to give them additional influence over ethics positions would not be independent and would be against the will of the voters. A lot of voters do not trust this government in part by what Measure G has caused to Measure J with 2.1 million voters. And so we deserve independent ethics commissions. Thank you.

Thank you. Byron, your line is open. Please begin. Byron, your line is open. I don't think we should take the precedent of following the fluid interpretation of the chair.

of the regular scheduling meetings, which is why we're working through this process. We've rushed from S&D, we've rushed to public comments, and it's just so impactful. Thank you to SC2 for your amendment, and for your team for tracking all of this work. It is a lot, it can be hard, especially given how county council and CEO just make up things as they're going along the process. I support your amendment, and I would have supported SC4 because if the sheriff and the VA did not have appointments, we would support a more independent process. And again, we want to make sure that as we look into how the board is aware or is not fully informed to make the decision, however effective measure is. Thank you, everyone.

Thank you. Mia Hendricks, your line is open. Please begin.

Supervisors, my name is Mia Hendricks. I'm a resident of SD3, and I'm here with the Reimagine LA Coalition. I'm here today to urge you to amend item 11. The community is better served if you truly make this an independent commission as the original recommendation stated. As written, this motion would give the sheriff and the district attorney each an appointed seat on the ethics commission. There is unlimited data to show that this would not help improve transparency or accountability, including these departments long histories of violence, abuse, corruption, retaliation, and harm against black, brown, poor immigrant and system impacted communities. These are two of the very same departments that would often be subject to ethics investigations and should not be on the commission that leads or has anything to do with these investigations. Don't rush this like you did measure G go back to the drawing board and support an independent ethics commissions that has a majority of members of

Thank you. Caller with phone number 323-635, your line is open. Please state your name and begin.

My name is Megan, and I work at Reimagine LA Coalition. I want to thank the GRTF for their labor on this, and I want to be very clear. It is absolutely outrageous that the Department and the DA are two of the most unethical departments in LA. being positioned even more influence our when these departments themselves require deep oversight and accountability. Did we forget that the deputy games are still operating in our jails and on our streets? Decades of violence, corruption and abuse retaliation for our community. Did we forget that the sheriff's department has cost taxpayers upwards of billions of dollars in settlements because of unethical behavior? And now some of the board want to reward these systems. You all are deeply curious about this if your stated values are care first, transparency, and jail's last. Similar to the original drafting of G, we want this to not be rushed. Thank you.

Thank you. Caller with phone number 310922, your line is open. Please state your name and begin.

My name is Manjusha Kulkarni and I'm Executive Director of AAPI Equity Alliance, a member of the Our LA Coalition. I also currently serve as the President of the LA City Ethics Commission. My comments are my own and do not reflect the opinions of the Commission or the city. We at AAPI Equity Alliance strongly supported Measure G and are happy to see it being implemented. We believe it is important to protect the independence of our county's ethics commission and uphold the recommendations of the GRTF. The GRTF's recommendations that a majority of members on the Ethics Commission be from the public and not appointed officials ensures that independence. I urge you today to not override their recommendations, but instead follow a model similar to the LA County Citizens Redistricting Commission and the California Citizens Redistricting Commission. We truly need an independent.

Thank you. Roy Humphries, your line is open. Please begin.

Thank you. Independence to Independence, congratulations on a giant step forward, which reminded me of the abject objection of Roland Unified School District when I attempted to get the word transparency put in the core values. As noted, ethics commissions are nothing new and can be as corrupt as any government organization. even if they're supposedly independent. You must have the best AI computers and data systems to be successful. Thanks to Supervisor Barger, she gets 99 Rotten Tomatoes. You all know that the answer on the financial aspect is to stop funding Biden illegals and join President Trump to give legal status to legacy illegals and the SAVE Act. Make your kids proud again.

Thank you. Caller, your line is open. Please state your name and begin.

Yes, hi. My name is Tony Patience. I live over here in the Compton area, and I was calling because I'm trying to catch on. I'm not sure if this is for government people only, but if not, you have a supervisor at the Compton Mental Health Center who may have been, I'm not going to say her name right now, unethical and you know never work always never have an answer and you know just treats the lgbt community differently but i just want to know is this going to be extended to the department people like the leaders in the department or is it just for the elected people okay thank you for the meeting everybody thank you caller with phone number 920-527 your line is open please state your name and begin

Hello, everybody. It is Councilmember John Erickson and President of California Contract Cities calling. I want to thank the Independent Board for all of their great work. The Task Force that months research and best practices, engaging experts and hearing community members create this input for the Independent Ethics Commission. uh the final recommendations are thoughtful compromised uh thoughtful compromise approved by the super majority vote that intentionally created a structure where no elected single office or branch of government could dominate the commission and they suggest bringing more consideration to us the voters to make sure the commission is truly independent They did the work, and I believe we should follow the lead. Please honor their careful, community-informed work, as well as making sure Marcel doesn't get any more gray hair from all of his work on there as well. Let's move forward with the recommendations as approved. Thanks, everyone. Hope you have a great day.

Thank you. We will now go to our in-person speakers. Please begin.

This is Perry Goldberg. And I submitted a letter on this from the Fiduciary Alliance for Los Angeles. Perceptions matter, and also Measure G mandated independence. There's no logical argument that having political appointees increases independence. There's only an argument that they decrease independence. The Government Reform Task Force had listening sessions. They had a consultant. They put together a report of the listening sessions. They asked the public, what do you want in terms of how these people are appointed? Do you want it to be that three? our political appointees or for our political appointees. And the public said, we don't want any of them to be political appointees. Supervisor Hahn is absolutely right. We should be the gold standard of this, not the silver or bronze standard of this. And we shouldn't be taking a chance to get this wrong. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Morning, Supervisors. First, I want to thank my colleagues on the Governance Reform Task Force for the tremendous amount of time, thoughtfulness, and care that went into these recommendations. Y'all should watch in. Like, just last week, we had a riveting four-hour discussion on separation of the powers from Measure G. This work is not rushed work. These recommendations involve months of research, difficult conversations, community engagement, community engagement, expert input, and thoughtful deliberation. I also want to thank Supervisor Mitchell for underscoring the amount of time and effort spent trying to get these recommendations right. At the center of this conversation is public trust. An ethics commission only works if people trust that it's truly independent and perceived to be independent. The Governors Reform Task Force recommendations intentionally sought to strike the balance, incorporating community voice, thoughtful considerations, all possibilities in building a structure where no single elected office or branch of government could dominate the commission. So I respectfully ask that you honor the original governance reform task force. And while we're at it, since we're talking about going back to the voters, we should all...

Thank you. We will now go back to remote callers. Margo Reed, your line is open. Please begin. Caller with phone number 323-626, your line is open. Please begin.

Yes, hi. My name is Holly Alsop, and I'm a grant writer who writes... Nonprofit Grants and represents the Disinvested and Julie Knuth. And I'm asking you to honor both the spirit of Minister Jay and the Work Governance Reform Task Force by adopting the Ethics Committee recommendations as originally approved. Members researched ethnic communities across California. They consulted experts. They held listening sessions. They worked with the questions. And the recommendations that came forward represent a compromise between different viewpoints. Evidence commissions only work when the public believes they are truly independent. They must be perceived as independent to serve our Angelenos, me, you, everybody. And this proposed change significantly alters the compromise reached by the task force. The task force engaged community members, strong institutions, everyone that matters got to say and put their voice in. And this, to me, is like the essence of Measure J, and Measure G needed it because it was an unexpected consequence of the Charter.

Thank you. Marin Sheeta, your line is open. Please begin.

Good afternoon, Supervisors. My name is Marin Sheeta. Am I on? Sorry. Yes, go ahead. I am with Black Wound for Wellness, a reproductive justice organization based in Leimert Park. Reproductive justice requires bodily autonomy, self-determination, and a government that is fully accountable to the communities it serves. We cannot have true community accountability without absolute political integrity. That is why we are deeply concerned by item 11, by giving the sheriff and district attorney direct appointment power This motion strips away the independent Public Majority Commission originally recommended by the task force law enforcement and prosecutors should not select the very people tasked With their ethical oversight to ensure the safety trust and political power of historically marginalized communities We urge you to amend item 11 and advance the task force original recommendations. Thank you.

Thank you caller with phone number 3 1 0 9 2 4 your line is open. Please state your name and begin I

Hi, my name is Marcella Rosen, and I'm calling to reiterate what a number of the callers have already said, as well as some of the supervisors. I do not approve the amendments or support the amendments brought forward to the original measure G intentions of an ethical independent oversight task force. Giving the Sheriff's Department an appointee spot on this task force is antithetical to its goals. There's already multiple oversight bodies for the Sheriff's Department and for law enforcement that are attempting to hold them to ethical standards that they don't conform to. So to give them an appointment seat on a body even higher than that on a body that's supposed to be all independent is very much not within the will of the people who voted for Measure J. Thank you.

Thank you. Caller with phone number 424645, your line is open. Please state your name and begin.

Hi, my name is Amanis Panati. I live in Los Angeles County. I'm a social worker and a professor at UCLA, and I work in LA USC as well. And all these people are affected by this, which is why I'm calling to urge the board to adopt an ethics commission that is truly independent and mandated by Measure G and to remove elected officials from the appointment process. Los Angeles County should adopt a model similar to the LA County Citizens Redistricting Commission and the California Citizens Redistricting Commission, a model that relies on public applications. transparent vetting and randomized selection not political appointments giving the sheriff and district attorney the power to nominate commissioners undermines the community voice and violates the independence promise to voters reducing the number of at-large seats to only two further concentrates power and silences the public we need a truly independent commission selected by the public not by the very institutions that may be subject to oversight thank you so much

Thank you. Caller with phone number 213-800. Your line is open. Please state your name and begin.

Hi, there. My name is ,, a constituent and supervisor of Mitchell's district and the deputy director of LA Ford Institute, which is a member of the RLA Coalition. Thanks for all your work. I'm calling to uplift RLA's recommendations, which are built on the GRCF thoughtful work. In particular, today's conversation that might give the sheriff and district attorney the power to nominate commissioners is concerning the many community members and creates room for conflict of interest. Additionally, reducing the number of at-large seats only silences community voice, and so instead, the county can adopt a model similar to the LA County Citizens Redistricting Commission and the California Citizens Redistricting Commission, models that fully remove elected officials from the appointment process and rely on randomized selection. Please adopt this independent selection process as recommended by the community. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Caller with phone number 323-896, your line is open. Please state your name and begin.

Yes, good morning. Good afternoon. Now, this is Mel Bailey, District 2. Now, I am excited about this. Initially, I was going to ask about Measure G, but you've already mentioned that, along with the consensus of 2030. I'm excited about this. To answer the question about what independence, to me, independent means it would be, I would like to say, completely disconnected from county employees. However, We have over 117,000 of those, so I would lead it to those people who are not connected to the Board of Supervisors, elected positions, or administrative executives within their respective departmental positions. It's great to include citizens for more balanced understanding. It will take quick enforceability. That's going to be needed. And as far as the law enforcement part, I mean, the Board of Supervisors is responsible for everybody. So we do need, even though there are some concerns, but we do need everybody at the table because while there might be some bad deputies, they're not all bad. They're bad therapists. They're bad nurses, doctors.

Thank you. Caller with phone number 213-977. Your line is open. Please state your name and begin.

Hi, my name is Jess Ferris, and I'm Senior Policy Counsel at ACLU Southern California, as well as a member of the Reimagine LA Coalition and a constituent of District 4. Just wanted to share we agree with Supervisors Mitchell and Hahn and many commenters and urge true independence for this commission, which could really never happen with sheriff and DA appointment. There are two departments that need extensive oversight over their own offices, two offices that comprise the epicenter of what voters don't trust in government, definitely two offices that will completely undermine the independence of this commission. Measure G voters weren't trying to vote to expand sheriff and DA influence with appointments on this commission, so we also support amending the motion to advance what the task force originally recommended, so Independent Ethics Commission has the best chance to have a majority of members trusted by and appointed by the people, which was promised. Thanks so much.

Thank you. Caller with phone number 213-294, your line is open. Please state your name and begin.

Hi, good afternoon. My name is Jacqueline Kotto representing LA Forward and a member of our LA. I live in Los Angeles County and I'm calling to urge the board to adopt a fully independent ethics commission as stated by Supervisor Hahn. We fully support that. We want an independent commission that is truly as it was mandated by Measure G and to remove elected officials from the process. LA County should adopt a model similar to the LA County Citizens Redistricting Commission and the California Citizens Redistricting Commission, a model that fully removes elected officials from the appointment process and relies on public application, transparency, and random selection, not political appointments. Given the Sheriff and DA, the power to nominate commissioners violates their independence promise under Measure G, reducing the number of at-large seats, to only two further concentrates the power and silences community voice. We need a truly independent commission collected by the public.

Thank you. Gabriela Gironas, your line is open. Please begin.

Hi, everyone. My name is Gabriela Gironas. I'm a member of the Governance Reform Task Force. You know, I'm coming here just to express the support of my colleagues and the incredible work we've been able to do on this ethics ad hoc. But more importantly, I'm coming here as I joined the Governance Reform Task Force almost a year ago now. not knowing very much about our local county government and how it functions. And honestly, I feel like this ad hoc has been an AP ethics government class to the max. But I think the one thing I really understand that I heard loud and clear from the community that we met with, the people we spoke to, the emails we received, and the letters we had, is that they are really supportive of the work we've done here. And we've been able to inhale as much of information as possible and create compromises that are with the mindset and hearts of Angelenos like myself and like our government's task force. So thank you for your time.

Thank you. Caller with phone number 818304, your line is open. Please state your name and begin.

Hi, my name is Brian Daly. I agree with what most people say. We need an independent ethics committee. When you have environmental health that won't only not enforce code, won't even admit that they're code enforcement, that's a problem. Eight different employees say the same thing. They're not code enforcement when they are. That's a huge problem to have that many people lying and denying you your rights at the same government agency. That's a huge problem. I've been living in a most toxic situation for three years now, two years with a The Board of Housing has known about it. They refused to move me. They cut off communication with me. And a government agency that won't enforce code, and they're not talking to me anymore either. So I'm stuck in this situation with liver failure, jaundice, and migraines all the time, and stuff coming out my ears, and no one's doing anything about it. That's all I have to say. Thank you.

Thank you. Margot Reek, your line is open. Please begin. Margo, your line is open. Caller with phone number 562-292, your line is open. Please state your name and begin. Caller with phone number 562-292, your line is open.

My name is Crystal Jones, and I'm here to uplift the same concerns as the community. We say we had an original amendment to say that it was an independent commission. How would this ethnic studies commission uplift community voice, remove systemic oppression and supremacy, and offer transparency communication, and safety, accountability, and trust. I have wrote supervisors. I have knocked on everybody's door to be displaced and homeless and ideas stolen from me and no help. And me and my kids are now homeless and fighting for our lives while we serve freely to help effective programs and strategies be taking place to see us not here helped. It's not okay. Does this actually help us bring accountability and real assistance and integrity to our county. And I really want the help and justice. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair, there are no other remote speakers to address the board. Remote participation for this item is now concluded.

Madam Chair, we will need to take a vote on Supervisor Mitchell's amendment first.

Is there a second? I don't think we need to take a vote on it. I see that Supervisor Mitchell is in the queue. Were you planning to change your amendment at all? Okay, then I'm happy to accept the amendment as friendly to the motion. I just wanted to address a couple of things. First, I want to thank everyone who came to speak, and I once again want to thank the Governance Reform Task Force for their work. I also want to thank my colleagues for how we were able to deliberate on this. I think that's really the goal of Measure G, and I know it's rare that we have this kind of conversation at the board, but I think it was incredibly valuable to do it in this way and to surface the concerns that were raised in discussion. I think the way that we talked about the proposed amendments and the content of this motion, we surfaced some of the things that came from the community, a suggestion of including elected appointments from other elected officials. We surfaced an entirely new form of how we could appoint the commission. I'm glad to hear that all of this, once again, is what was considered by the Governance Reform Task Force in their recommendations. And so in the spirit of working collaboratively and listening to the process that is underway, I'm certainly happy to accept these amendments and make sure that we have a united proposal. I just wanted to address one other point because I know there's a lot of discussion around the issue of cost. The commitment in Measure G was to not raise taxes to implement Measure G. And having been close to that commitment, I would say that voters expect whatever measures are required for enforcement of ethics within the county to come from within our county budget. They don't expect to be taxed, especially to make sure that we have an ethical government. So I think that that's really what the commitment of Measure G was. Supervisor Mitchell.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I had an aha moment. So it's a question for county council in that the motion is talking about the crafting of a new ordinance that And I'm pausing so you can check my language if I say it incorrectly. It is an ordinance.

It's both an ordinance and a charter amendment.

Charter amendment. Both. Charter amendment. I'd like to hear from county council if the other issue that Measure G created, which was the elimination of Measure J from code, could also be addressed in this charter amendment. and perhaps if you could give us a report back to clarify if that could be done.

We can certainly do a report back on that, absolutely.

Thank you.

Okay, very good.

So we will take a vote to amend first.

Okay, moved by Supervisor Mitchell.

The amendment was accepted as friendly, so I don't think we have to vote on the amendment. We need to take a vote.

I think because there was concerns It might be clearer to just take a vote just for the record sake.

Yeah. Call the roll. I think we'll need a second. As amended. Yeah, it was seconded.

It was seconded by Horvath.

Yes.

Okay. Sorry about that. Supervisor Mitchell?

Aye.

Supervisor Mitchell, aye. Supervisor Horvath?

Aye.

Supervisor Horvath, aye. Supervisor Hahn?

No.

Supervisor Hahn, no. Supervisor Barger? Aye. Supervisor Barger, aye. Supervisor Solis?

Aye.

Supervisor Solis, aye. Motion carries 4-1. We will now vote on item 11 as amended.

Move by Supervisor Horvath, seconded by Supervisor Mitchell?

Sure.

Okay, let's go. Hey.

Supervisor Mitchell?

Aye.

Supervisor Mitchell, aye. Supervisor Horvath?

Aye.

Supervisor Horvath, aye. Supervisor Hahn?

Well, even though I disagree with the ultimate decision on the composition, because I don't think it's independent enough, I don't want to vote against the creation of an ethics commission, and those two are woven together in this vote. So, aye.

Supervisor Hahn, aye. Supervisor Barger? I'm reclaiming my time.

Aye.

Supervisor Barger, aye. Supervisor Solis?

Aye.

Supervisor Solis, aye. Motion carries five to zero.

Who says we can't get along? That's what this is about, democracy. Thank you. Okay, EO.

We will now move on to item 17, 2026, election resiliency and response, which was held by Supervisor Solis. For members of the public joining us remotely to comment on this item, please use the raise hand feature if you are online or press star three if on the telephone. Dean Logan, registered recorder, county clerk, Jason Skeen, assistant sheriff, sheriff's department, Don Harrison, county council, Kevin McGowan, Director of the Office of Emergency Management, and I are available for questions for the department speakers. Please state your name and title for the record when you address the board.

Thank you. First of all, I'd like to thank Supervisor Horvath for joining me as co-author on this, what I think is a very important motion before us today. I also want to thank Dean Logan and his team for their work to ensure a fair and accessible election here in Los Angeles County. And as we prepare for June the 2nd, 2026 primary, and the November 3rd, 2026 general elections, we must be ready to react quickly to changing circumstances on the ground that could alter the administrative and legal landscape of these elections. And just as an example, a ruling in the Watson v. Republican National Committee Supreme Court case could invalidate state laws that allow a grace period for ballots postmarked by Election Day. This could possibly change the rules of the election with little time to respond. And it could mean that ballots postmarked on June the 2nd could be challenged. There have also been many high-profile cases of ballots being confiscated across the country, and the federal government has also threatened to make arrests or file lawsuits related to election administration. In fact, we saw ballots confiscated recently in Riverside County by a gubernatorial candidate, and we saw ballots seized by the federal government in Fulton County, Georgia for the 2020 election. This is why this motion I did, well, I did a motion in March directing the registrar recorder to prepare for any possible interruptions. And that is why a few weeks ago, Dean Logan led the county in an exercise to help us prepare for some of the challenges that we may face during the June primary and the November general election. And through that exercise, it became clear to me that in order to respond quickly and efficiently on election day, we need to be ready. And that means to have a plan. The county must delineate clear authority to make timely decisions, including providing authority for any potential legal response. And to that end, this motion provides county council the authority to react quickly to any emergencies on the ground, which might include the following, providing for the defense of county employees should they be charged with federal criminal offenses while administering their election duties, and providing county council in collaboration with the registrar recorder the authority to initiate or support litigation against the federal government for election interference or disruption. With just a few days before our first vote centers open, this motion will strengthen the county's preparedness and response capabilities for these upcoming elections. Colleagues, I want to ask for your aye vote on this matter, but before I turn to my coauthor, I want to also ask our county departments a couple of questions and if you could respond. And this goes first for Dean Logan, our registrar recorder. What are some of the steps that we can take as a county to ensure that election workers will be protected while carrying out their duties.

Good afternoon, Supervisor and Board, Dean Logan, Registrar, Recorder, County Clerk. First, I want to thank you for the motion, and I want to thank the Board and really the entire county operation for their support and collaboration in response to our election activities. The event that you mentioned on May 1st, where we had eight departments, county leadership, together to look into scenarios and to make sure we were prepared for this election speaks highly of the commitment in LA County to fair, accessible, and transparent elections. Specific to your question, with regard to support for our election workers, which are the heart of the people who deliver the election process out in the field. We have a layered approach. First, we are fortunate, thanks to the actions of this board, to have a primary staffing model that uses county employees in those positions, and we staff At a level where nobody is isolated out there in the community. We have over 640 vote centers and there are multiple employees there who have been trained on both their duties to administer the election, but also their ability to identify and respond if there's a disruptive activity. So we have protocols in place for that. We do de-escalation training. We also have, the next layer is we have people who are out in the field assigned coordinators and troubleshooters who are in the community and can quickly get to a vote center if there is an event or an incident that requires response. We have a team of reservists. So if we have election workers who are unable to show up or have to leave for some reason, we have trained people who are on the ready to go in and take their place. And then we have interagency coordination, as evidenced by the people that you see here with me and at the event. that are tracking and working with us on a real-time basis to monitor what's going on out in the locations. So we really take an incident management response and a situational awareness response. But I will also add that what I appreciate about this motion is that this eliminates the layer of putting stress on our election workers of wondering, are they going to somehow be at risk for doing this important work? So I thank you for offering this motion.

Thank you, and I would also like for you to explain any actions that your department has taken to ensure that voters are informed about their rights and their voting options, and especially in areas with respect to what happened with Watson versus RNC and other executive orders impacting elections.

Yeah, thank you, Supervisor. So we have a comprehensive voter outreach and education program. Our publications that have gone out to every registered voter in LA County include their vote by mail packet, which includes information on their rights and opportunities to cast their vote. We have the sample ballot book that has gone out to every individual voter. again, outlining those options, giving them a sample of what they're going to see when they show up to vote, and then we, last week, mailed a postcard to every registered voter that lists the vote centers that are closest to them. All of those are vehicles to provide information to voters about their options, but we also have a phased-in public outreach program where we focus, up until this week, have focused on voter registration and making sure that your address is correct, that your information is correct, that you've validated validated that you are, in fact, registered. We'll now move into a phase of that outreach campaign where we're encouraging voters to return their vote-by-mail ballots, primarily through our Dropbox program or through the mail, but also advising them on important things, like if you're going to mail your ballot back, to allow at least seven days transit time to be sure that we get it back in time. And then this weekend, our in-person vote centers start to open. We have our mobile and flex vote center programs where we are taking voting to where the people are at events that are highly populated, that give voters the opportunity to cast their ballot. And then we have a program where voters can subscribe to get information, where they walk through a Make a Plan to Vote program indicate how they plan to cast their ballot, and then we will in turn send out push notifications through text or email that remind them of deadlines, but also validate that they've met those deadlines. So if their ballot has been received and processed in our office, they get verification of that so they know that their ballot got back timely and has been handled securely. So it really is a comprehensive approach. With regard to the pending decision in the Supreme Court case of Watson versus RNC, we don't believe that that case will be decided before the June 2nd election. If it is, we will have to work with county council on any implications of that. But even if it's not, if there's an adverse decision in that case, even after the June election, it very well would impact the November election. And that could be possibly a significant change in the voting rules in California. So we would be looking to both the state and your board for support to do extensive outreach in that regard. And I think in this case, it's significant enough that we would want to look at the data and identify voters whose ballots were valid because of that postmark rule and reach out to them on an individual basis to be sure that they understand that that rule has changed and that they know how they can ensure that their ballot is going to be counted under the new rules.

And you just said something earlier about encouraging people to turn in their ballots seven days before the election. that you have a program up. I think that's really important. And I get that there's a lot of talk about whether people want to vote and turn anything in right now because they don't know who to vote for for certain positions.

Yeah, it's a tough situation or a balancing situation. I think we are trying to put out the message that if you are ready and have made your decisions, we encourage you to vote early. That gets the ballots back. Obviously, we are a large county. We have a large volume of ballots to process. It enables us to do that more efficiently. But there's a counter message out there that's encouraging people to wait. And so what we want voters to know is if you are going to wait, take advantage of the in-person voting opportunities and take advantage of the drop boxes or dropping your ballot at a vote center rather than putting them back to the mail.

Okay, good. I wanted to ask our sheriff, you participated, your folks did at the tabletop activity a few weeks ago. How are you preparing for the June elections?

Thank you for having us today. I'm Assistant Sheriff Jason Skeen over countywide operations. So we began our planning process actually going into last year and working with the County Registrar's Office and the Office of Emergency Management. While we've been doing security at elections for many, many, many decades, including myself now going into my 32nd year dealing with the elections, I can tell you robust planning and consequence management is critical to making sure things are successful. We work closely with even the local partners, state, and even federal. We look at intelligence. We will be monitoring even that day. We will be looking at how things are going on the East Coast to know what we could be looking at three hours from now. Intelligence is important in our line of work. We build in contingency plans to deal with various potential management challenges. I can tell you we've already started working at the processing center now to provide security at that location. That's how seriously we take it. As we all know, there'll be early voting starting this Saturday. We will be monitoring those things and we've also been working with our county partners all the other cities throughout LA County to make sure that they're getting the same information that we have at the county level as well.

So that's a question for OEM. Like, how do we really centralize information? Because there could be misinformation, right? And what's our plan?

Good afternoon, Supervisors. Kevin McGowan, Director with the Office of Emergency Management. I'm going to piggyback off of something Dean had mentioned. We approach this through the same way we approach all of our hazards in a interagency coordination function using incident management principles. So our Emergency Operations Center activates for the elections. It supports the Election Operations Center. So we have two EOCs, the Emergency Operations Center and the Election Operations Center. that they tie in hand in hand. There's a representative from the sheriff team, OEM, and register recorder at both of those sites. We also coordinate through one voice messaging, a joint information system that's supported It's led by the Registrar-Recorder County Clerk Office, but then it's supported with all of our public information officers from public safety and emergency management. And the additional aspect I would build off of what Assistant Sheriff Skeen had mentioned is the Emergency Operations Center, it activates for all of our elections since back in 2019, I believe was the first one, focused on consequence management. to all of our hazards. So what would happen if a voting center was in a high fire severity zone and a fire occurs? Those are just some of the different things that we plan for and then route communications through our joint information team. Thank you for the opportunity. Happy to address any questions.

great okay with that i will go to my co-author supervisor horvath thank you madam chair free and fair accessible elections are the foundation of our democracy and los angeles county has responsibility to protect every person's right to vote and have their ballot counted people need to know that their voice matters and that our election system will work for them across the country election workers are facing growing threats intimidation and political attacks simply for doing their jobs. These are public servants working long hours to help millions of people participate in our democracy. They should not face retaliation for carrying out their responsibilities in good faith. This motion makes clear that Los Angeles County will stand behind the workers who help administer our elections and ensure they can continue doing their jobs safely, lawfully, and without fear. It also ensures the county is prepared to respond quickly if there are attempts to interfere with voting, create confusion around election rules, disrupt election administration, or undermine public confidence in the outcome of an election. Los Angeles County runs one of the largest and most complex election systems in the country. Protecting the integrity of that process and the public's trust in it is one of the most important responsibilities we have. At the end of the day, this is about protecting voters, supporting the public servants who safeguard our elections and defending the fundamental right of every Angeleno to participate in free and fair elections. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Next, Catherine Barger, supervisor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have two questions, actually, and Dean, for you. I understand there's a lot of confusion circulating around the upcoming elections. I'd like to ask what kind of training your department is coordinating to ensure all our election workers are adequately prepared for any situation that they may encounter, while still upholding the integrity of the election process and representing the county well. While we want to ensure our election workers are protected, it's essential that we simultaneously protect the county. So knowing that there are some concerns surrounding the federal government, What steps are you taking to train poll workers about the do's and don'ts?

Yeah, thank you, Supervisor. I think it's important to acknowledge that the training of our election workers is a critical component of the integrity of the election process. Our elections are, for the most part, governed by state law, and state law is very specific about how elections are conducted, what voters' options are, and how our election workers should interface with those voters when they show up to vote. So that is what our training program focuses on, is giving them the basics of what the law requires, making sure that they are carrying out those laws, but that they aren't going beyond what those laws require, and that there are checks and balances, that nobody is individually able to disrupt an individual's opportunity to cast their ballot. So we do that through comprehensive training. Our leads and assistant leads, who are the ex-officio supervisor of the locations, go through in-person training, they go through online training, and they go through an assessment before placement. And then we have people in the field who visit those locations. They have a checklist to make sure that things are operating correctly. There's also a field support technician at every one of those locations whose sole purpose is to support the infrastructure of the voting location.

So similar to what we have here, like when we do ethics classes, we have to... sign off and acknowledge that we took it. Do you require them to sign off on the fact that they have been advised about the do's and don'ts and how far you can go?

They do acknowledge in the training process. I would have to check to see the exact wording on that, but there is an acknowledgement. And they also, when they sign in each day in their capacity as an official election worker, they are attesting to carrying out the election in accordance with the state law.

Thank you. And then Don, I just want to clarify the directive that asked for the defense of any LA County election employees who are charged with a federal crime in the discharge of their duties administering the upcoming elections. If they are acting in good faith and without malice, similar to DCFS, uh, social workers, does the board currently have discretion to provide criminal defense to a County employee if their actions meet that necessary criteria?

Yes, Supervisor. Your board always has that discretion. The statute does not mandate or require any public entity to provide legal counsel in criminal matters. It does give public entities that discretion. It provides guideposts that you mentioned in terms of acting within scope and in good faith without actual malice, and also a finding that it would be in the public entity's best interest. But you do have that discretion now. So we already have that?

So this motion is just... reiterating what's already in the books? That is correct. All right. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Supervisor Hahn.

Thank you, Supervisor Solis and Horvath for introducing this motion. I think it's clear that our responsibility is simple to make sure every eligible voter can safely cast their ballot and have that ballot counted. We've always seen the federal government as our partners in this effort, but given this current administration's attempt to steal the election in 2020 and the open threats we are hearing now by administration officials, we need to prepare for the worst. And I appreciate that this motion allows us to be prepared and make sure that our county council can respond quickly to potential federal actions that could threaten the integrity of our elections. And I like the part. In fact, the most important part of this motion for me is ensuring that our workers know that should the federal government try to go after them for doing their jobs, we will have their back. And I think that's an important message for them to hear. It's disturbing that we're even in this position to have to take these steps, but I am happy to support this motion. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Supervisor Mitchell.

Thank you very much. I just wanted to share, I will be supporting the motion at a NOBCO, National Association of Black County Officials, convening recently. I had the opportunity to hear a presentation by the Cook County Registrar, says she's been here to tour the facility in Supervisor Solis' district. But as we talk about building trust in our system over time, she has a pilot program I hope you'll consider. I sent it to Secretary of State Shirley Weber as well, where she trains young people to be ambassadors is the wrong word, but like they review, they are like marshals, election site marshals. They go through the whole training process to really understand the entire voting system. And once they do that, it just instills in them as young voters and future voters, a high level of confidence in the system. So I thought it was a remarkable idea as we have to go about really training the future generation of civil engagement to really understand the process from soup to nuts, and what better way to do that than to work inside of it. So I just wanted to share that with you, not in time for this election, but how do we expand the pool of people who are also working, poll workers, not just county employees, but the general public, and how we pull the next generation of voters into the process.

Thank you, Supervisor. I would love to learn more about that program. And again, I'm glad you met my colleague from Cook County. She's amazing. I did want to just share that we do, amongst our community election workers, we do have high school election workers. So we have several thousand high school election workers. As you indicated, they go through the entire training and they participate. There are particularly critical in supporting the equipment needs at the vote centers, and they also are highly reliable for our weekend vote center hours. So it's a great program, and I look forward to ways that we might be able to enhance that.

Thank you very much. With that, seeing no other questions from the board, let's go to public comment.

Will the following individual please come forward and staff will assist you? Nancy Yap. Caller Jeanette Ellis Royston, your line is open. Please begin. Jeanette, your line is open. Please begin. Dr. Wilma Franco, your line is open. Please begin.

Hi, good morning. My name is Dr. Wilma Franco and I serve as the Executive Director of the CELA Collaborative and I'm actually calling in support of item 17. I want to first thank the supervisors for introducing this important motion as we prepared for the primary elections and also as we plan for the general elections. It must be ready to react. The county needs to be ready to react quickly to changing legal circumstances on the ground that could alter the administrative and legal landscape. I think we have seen a lot of the challenges that are happening in other jurisdictions, including things like confiscation of ballots. And I think it's imperative that the county is prepared to quickly respond in a way that is also efficient to ensure that our communities have a safe, secure and accessible ELECTION PROCESS. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR INTRODUCING THIS. AND I URGE THE BOARD TO PASS ITEM 17. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. KATHERINE WONG, YOUR LINE IS OPEN. PLEASE BEGIN.

HELLO.

YES, PLEASE BEGIN.

Thank you. Thank you to Supervisor Solis and Horvath for introducing this important motion. Good afternoon. My name is Calvin Wang. I'm a staff attorney calling on behalf of Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California in support of Item 17. AG SoCal is a legal services and civil rights organization serving Asian American and Pacific Islander communities across Southern California, and I'm part of the scheme handling election-related litigation for this cycle. Asian American and Pacific Islander voters in LA County face language access barriers that make election disruptions disproportionately harmful. When the rules change last minute or ballots get seized, communities that already navigate the process in a second language are the ones who fall through the cracks. HSO Cal has litigation capacity and stands ready to coordinate with county council if this authority needs to be exercised. We urge the board to pass item 17 and will be ready to provide assistance to county council if events start to impede the delivery of safe, secure, and accessible elections. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair, there are no other remote speakers to address the board. Remote participation for this item is concluded. We will go to our in-person speakers. Please begin.

Hi, I'm Nancy Yap. I'm the Executive Director at CAUSE, and I want to thank Supervisor Solis and Supervisor Horvath for this motion. I also want to thank the Registrar, Recorder, County Clerk for all that you do in partnership with our organization. And we just want our communities to feel safe. We want our election workers to also feel like they have support. And any information on what this process could look like going forward also just helps us share with our communities that the locations and the vote centers where we are gathering and we are getting out the vote are also safe. So just really appreciate the intent of this and the continued thoughtfulness around making sure our communities can vote. So thank you so much. Thank you. Next speaker, please.

How are you doing? My name is Sean Patterson. I represent the Mafia Monthly Anti-Racist Campaign. We do not support illegal orders. We support elections where we always have a candidate that is being opposed. I would like to I want the Board of Supervisors to make a motion to have all elections where candidates are not running unopposed. It's racist. It's like cheating. Trump is there because he cheated on the election himself. Now, what the black community is trying to say is we are more than willing to put up candidates for any unopposed election. No. if you have any questions or comments about what I said. Supervisor. Will you issue a motion?

Thank you. We will go back to our remote callers. Laura Herrera, your line is open. Please begin.

My name is Laura Herrera and I'm a lifelong L.A. County resident and I'm calling in support of item 17. Thank you so much to Supervisors Solis and Horvath for introducing this important motion. As L.A. County prepares for the June 2nd primary election and the November 3rd general election, it is critical that the county is ready to respond quickly to changing legal or administrative circumstances that could impact election operations. Having previously worked at the L.A. County Register of Porter County Clerk, I understand how important it is that the county be prepared to protect ballot access and ensure voters can participate safely and securely. We've seen in other jurisdictions how quickly issues around ballot access and election administration can arise. This motion helps ensure that the county is ready to protect safe, secure, and accessible elections for all voters. I respectfully urge the board to pass item 17. Thank you so much.

Thank you. That concludes the time for public comment on this item.

This item, I will move it, seconded by Horvath. And let's call the roll.

Supervisor Mitchell?

Aye.

Supervisor Mitchell, aye. Supervisor Han?

Aye.

Supervisor Han, aye. Supervisor Barger? Aye. Supervisor Barger, aye. Supervisor Solis? Aye. Supervisor Solis? Aye.

Yes, aye. Aye.

Motion carries, four to zero. Thank you. We will now move on to Item 43, Report on the Status of Adopting a Global Plan for the Probation Department Halls and Camps. And Item 44, Report on the Status of the Probation Department, which were held by Supervisor Horvath. For members of the public joining us remotely to comment on these items, please use the raise hand feature if you're online or press star 3 if on the telephone. Robert Archos, Chief Deputy, and Deanna Carlisle, Human Resources Manager, Probation Department, will make a presentation. Dr. Lisa Wong, Director of Mental Health, Dr. Christina Galli, Director of Health Services, Michael Oh, Director of Internal Services, Lisa Garrett, Director of Personnel, David Carroll, Director of Youth Development, Dr. Barbara Ferrer, Director of Public Health, and Mario Marcos, Chief of School Support and Transformation, Los Angeles County Office of Education, will be available for questions. For the departmental speakers, please state your name and title for the record when you address the board.

Okay, Supervisor Horvath. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I did want to record my aye vote on the previous item. Yes, thank you. Do you have a presentation that you'd like to get into?

Good afternoon, Supervisors. Robert Arcos, Chief Deputy Operations. First, I'd just like to extend my apologies. Chief Vieira Rosa was here and he was called away on a personal matter and he sends his apologies. myself and Deanna Carlisle are here. We do have a presentation and consistent with what Chief Vieira Rosa has done in the past is he's kind of skimmed through these but I can go through each slide if that would be helpful. We have a status update and on the department depopulation plan and receivership hearings, the mutual aid on local law enforcement status, the community supervision model, updates on the OIG recommendations, and metrics in hiring and recruitment. Those are the slides for today. If it's okay with you, I'll just kind of go through each slide without having to go through the PowerPoint for you. Just a quick update on our receivership hearings we had last week. They were held on May 8th, 2026 and May 14th, and they focused on use of force and OC spray. The monitor, Mr. Michael Dempsey, was the witness for the state on this case. Although there are a number of things that he mentioned are. still in the works and need some improvement. He did comment many times in the hearings on really noticeable improvement, noticeable improvement in the response to use of force, noticeable improvement in OCD contamination policies and protocols. and really the metrics on which we're starting to track the incidents in our facilities and the team that is responsible for reviewing these and making corrective actions and suggested training around those incidents. There was nothing significant on the depopulation plan update other than At our order to show cause hearing with Judge Espinosa, he did ask for a review of Dorothy Kirby Center for the ability to receive predisposition youth that are developmentally disabled for an evaluation of that. So we're going through that process right now. very significant need for improvements of Dorothy Kirby to take on pre-disabled youth in order to comply with BSEC. So we're awaiting that report on just what that looks like for cost.

No, I told him I wasn't going to do it. OK.

I have a great partner back there, David Carroll from DYD. No, it's OK. All right. An update on the mutual aid and law enforcement was provided. As you know, we started this agreement that the support supported close to a year ago. In that time, we have about 11 active agencies participating in the MOU and reporting to LA Impact as a fiduciary steward of the MOU, reporting back on their results and effectiveness. Myself and our Deputy Director for Campus Safety and Security, Darren Arakawa, presented at the L.A. County Chiefs Retreat in Palm Springs several weeks ago and again encouraged the engagement in this MOU and received some feedback on some things that would make things a little bit more easier for them. But in short and summary, some of the things that are creating some obstacles for them or resources each of the local law enforcement agencies are dealing with their own resources their own priorities and in some cases the reimbursement goes straight to their general fund so there's not a cost benefit for them getting it back to the department so those are primarily some of the reasons but we have had some positive results from the contact that they are making in the field as of this last quarter 361 compliance checks and just over 129 in compliance and new violations 27. So we'll continue to manage and monitor the work that they're doing and maintain that relationship that we have with our local law enforcement partners that are conducting this. An update on the community supervision model. I was privileged enough to sit with Chief Vera last week with Judge Tapia, the presiding judge, who asked for a little bit more feedback on what the community supervision model looks like. With this new normal for LA County probation, the chief undertook a very extensive reorganization of the department, as you know, to make sure that we were shoring up the staffing that was needed in our facilities. So it really did decrease the number of available field staff. So we had to rethink that model and think differently about how we approach community supervision. We have about 100 officers. We've removed the special enforcement officers from that single purpose, and now they are incorporated into community supervision, assigned to the field offices throughout LA County. What the chief has really cited a number of times is the national model and best practices really call for community supervision to be conducted in the home by a probation officer. That is where you really have the best assessment of what the structure and support system looks like for the client and also the immediate identification of what referral needs they have. LA County Probation in the past has used much more contacts through office visits, which is still nice to have, but it really doesn't give a good full picture and assessment of the needs of the client. This is why he has pushed to this best practice and We believe that we will have better results even though there are some concerns on maybe the size of the supervision model. We think that we can be more effective when we are in the home making these assessments and the goal is once we are notified of a The probationers address that we will make these visits within the first 30 days. And those are the metrics that we're going to capture is the number of home visits we're making within the first 30 days and the results. What type of referrals are being provided, working with our partners in the county, also make sure that they're getting those services provided to them as well. There's an update. I think we spoke last time about the OIG recommendations on detention reports. And our Director of Intake, Director Cesar Marroquin, has been very diligent and engaged with the court, with Judge Espinosa, on these court reports receiving the LADS scores. And we have a date scheduled for June 30th as a date that we'll start utilizing the LADS scores in the court reports. It's going to go with, just for reference, this Thursday I'm also meeting with Director Marroquin and Judge Espinosa to talk about the model of the training that's gonna be provided to the bench officers and just what it means, what these LADD scores do mean for their assessments in court. So we're really excited about that happening. It's something that we have definitely agreed with the OIG on that recommendation and we should have some feedback from the bench and Judge Espinosa after the June 30th date. Those are just a very skimmed through version of the slides I have. I can provide some responses to those updates, but also have hiring recruitment here. Deanna Carlisle is here who can answer questions around the hiring and recruitment status of the department as well.

Thank you very much. I want to begin with a bit of a positive note and some appreciation. I understand over Mother's Day weekend, for the first time in recent memory, all of probation's facilities hosted visitation with hugs at the beginning and end of the visits, I think, and no doubt due to Supervisor Hahn's advocacy, and I'm sure she had a role in making that happen. when you were here last time. However, I stress that we want to understand what the specific metrics, as you see them, are for showing progress and turning around our probation department. Today's presentation hints at metrics for hiring, but I didn't really see metrics in terms of services, population numbers, suitability, or decarceration. So I think it's important that we really understand what success means and how you're defining it given the challenges that we face. So have you identified metrics for success in those categories? And if so, what are they?

Yes, thanks for that question, Supervisor Horvath. And just first, before I get to that question, I want to thank you for acknowledging the Mother's Day visits. incredible opportunity for our staff to engage with the youth while they were receiving their parents there. We also provided surveys to the parents after the visit. Each one of our facilities provided either a roses for the parents and or individualized personalized cards to the parents. So it was it was very emotional emotional for the youth the parents and quite frankly our staff that they're actually getting an opportunity to witness this so more to follow on that we know that this is the way forward absolutely we believe in the engagement of the hug being a positive benefit for not just the youth on that day but the days following looking forward to those going forward Supervisor Horvath on the question on the metrics you know the chief has utilize the depopulation plan as trying to lower the population and spread the population across the facilities, at the same time looking at better ways that we can have efforts in quickly placing our youth. And we have a number of teams that work in placement that work on IDC. If I could just talk back up a little bit as far as decarceration efforts on the statistics that we receive monthly on how many youth we do intake on a monthly basis from the month of September to April of 2020, September of 2025 to April of this year, we have had 665 opportunities where we redirected the local law enforcement to cite out the youth. So we believe that is a number that does not also get captured enough. Certainly we would like for it to be higher, but there are some legal mandates that require us to take the youth in on intakes, specifically 707 offenses. But once the youth are in our care and our custody, what does the process look like for finding suitable placement quickly? There's a number of things that we have to work with also on the court on that to getting approval for making those decisions. We are meeting with the court to have very, I think, Good discussions about discretion around bench warrants and warrants that are low-level offenses that may be an opening for another metric for us to cover. The other aspect around our female youth with the Ending Girls' Incarceration Initiative, we're working very closely with OICR and Just Solve, the partner with OICR. We have developed a framework that was provided to us by OICR and JustSolve as a working model where we have a dedicated team of four staff that are working towards EGI with Beloved Village and Young Women's Freedom Center for placement of our youth. It is still very early in the process, but we have a A VERY ENTHUSIASTIC GROUP AROUND THAT PROCESS. THIS FRIDAY WE HAVE ANOTHER MEETING WITH THE EGI INITIATIVE AND OYCR TO DISCUSS SOME OF THE MODELS THAT THEY HAVE SEEN BOTH HERE IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND NATIONALLY ON THINGS THAT WE COULD ADOPT. AND ONE OF THOSE PRACTICES THAT THEY HAVE CONTINUED TO BRING FORWARD IS ON THE DISCRETION AROUND BENCH WARRANTS FOR YOUTH POSSIBLE PLACEMENT.

I'm clear that you're using the depopulation plan to guide that work. I think it would be helpful for us to understand what metrics you're using to establish what you expect population and service delivery and suitability, all of these issues that we are constantly challenged with and asked about. how you are defining what's suitable or what appropriate level of services, what the population you expect, and given the options that you have, I think understanding if we're meeting our metrics and helping manage expectations, because I do think there was a directive from this board to decarcerate you know, young women, and now we're at a higher number than when that directive came. So I think really understanding what it is you think the goals are that you're trying to meet, because I think there remains a disconnect on that. I think this board also unanimously directed probation to immediately transfer to DYD unspent funds reserved for services to support CSEC youth. And that is after probation itself reported unspent, unclaimed, or unallocated CSEC funding. And I think it personally is very frustrating and disappointing that those funds which probation itself told the board existed and were unspent have not been transferred. So do you have a timeline on when those funds are going to be transferred?

I think the chief has indicated that he is supportive of making that transfer. I think the question that he wanted to have answered, and I know he's not here, so I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I think the... And we've had very good conversations with Mr. Carroll and Taylor from DYD around the transfer of that. I think that his question remains is the... legal authority to transfer state funds over to another entity that were maybe earmarked specifically for probation. I think that's one of the questions we wanted to have answered through county council.

One of the reasons that we are so adamant about it is because of what's going on with this unit. I understand that nearly the entire staff of the CSEC unit, probation CTU, was changed after the motion that the board considered. The director was moved, most of the staff are new, It's our understanding several of them are new to CSEC work entirely, so they are not trained or qualified to issue the court reports necessary to serve these youth. It's incredibly troubling to us, at least in my office. These new staff will require significant onboarding, training, and support as they learn this specialization. and it's difficult to understand how this restructuring was designed to improve the CTU's operations or better support trafficked young people when it's now staffed with people who have no familiarity with it. If probation feels it needs to divest from this work because of more critical needs elsewhere, that's all the more reason I would expect that funding identified in our April 7th motion be transferred immediately. I understand you recently put in place a strike team to get into compliance at LP in advance of the next major BSCC inspection. So where did the staff serving on the LP strike team come from and what units have effectively been deprioritized in favor of the strike team?

Supervisor Horvath, I hear you on all of that, and I think there's no greater at-risk population than the CSEC population, and we need to place emphasis on that. When the CTU CSEC team was reorganized, they went from three employees that were on the team to eight. But to your point, I don't know the experience level, the team that was brought on. but they do have many more than they had initially. So I need to look into the experience level of the team that was created in the CTU model. The strike team, there was two directors that came from the field. We did also get a director from CSAC for her experience with facilities. And there is also two employees two directors from the facility itself that are tied to the model, and one special assistant from outside of the unit.

So from my vantage point, it means CSEC was deprioritized, and that's why I think my request about definition of metrics is so important. It's not enough to just staff up a unit if nobody knows how to operate it and knows the particular needs of our CSEC youth. We're not going to be able to meet what it is that we need to serve them with while they are in our care. So have you explored a strike team with the goal of lowering the population?

I don't know that that's been a conversation that we've had. This model that we're using now was specifically designed around the upcoming BSEC inspection of Los Padrinos before August 14th, which was ordered by Judge Espinosa. But I know this model is something that the chief is anxious to use as a model to transfer to other facilities and work around compliance and and other areas that are identified for a metric that we can use to help with the de-incarceration.

On another note, just yesterday my team learned that visiting was shut down at Campus Kilpatrick because an incident in one cottage required moving staffing out of visiting. That means some youth may not have been able to see their families who went great distance to see them. Some families may have made the trek to Malibu only to have visiting canceled due to no fault of their own, which is incredibly troubling. It seems to me it's undisputably easier to get into suitability, to get into compliance where the population is lower and our youth are getting the supports that they need. But that doesn't seem to be happening despite the extensive changes that the department has made. And I really believe that's what needs to be the goal of this movement, not just putting people in different positions. So on decarceration, what are you doing differently in units responsible for decarceration and diversion, or are we continuing what we have been doing?

I don't know that I can answer that completely to any kind of satisfaction today, Supervisor Horvath. I'd like to take a look at that. I know that we've been asked to look at who is working on decarceration efforts. I believe, again, it starts with our IDC intake officers, where we have 10 officers assigned to that unit. And then it goes into our juvenile services specialized units that work on suitable placement in the STRPs and working with CDP for the electronic monitoring. There's a number of moving parts around that that are occupied by officers working towards that end. But I just also want to address the issue at CVK on the visitation. We're very, very disappointed that happened, and it is a breakdown in our communication that we took a really appropriate action immediately around that. There were six parents who came in to visit. Each one of those parents was called personally by the superintendent to offer their apologies on that occurring and also to offer FaceTime visits or also special visit during the week. We know how important those visits are and we're very, very disappointed that that occurred.

On the issue of decarceration, as with CSEC funding, it's not an issue from our perspective of money. For example, Young Women's Freedom Center was given a grant of a million dollars from OICR to serve women and girls and specifically decarcerate them. yet it is our understanding there they haven't been able to maximize their services in the current structure so i recognize our probation department and the youth in its custody and the staff that work in the facilities are undergoing unprecedented challenges we can't let the difficulty of this moment prevent us from identifying and implementing ways to do better And I think there are some significant challenges that, despite the movement that the department chief has directed, are still in a big, you know, still in a predominantly challenged space. And so I have concerns about that, you know, and I'll look forward to understanding better as you define what you see success as, what you think success will look like in the future.

Thank you, Supervisor.

Thank you. Supervisor Barger?

Thank you. And Supervisor Horvath, I echo your concerns about the CSEC. I've worked with someone for a long time who's very familiar with what we've done. And they've communicated to me that there are some serious issues surrounding the CSEC population. And one example is protocols are not being consistently followed as youth are processed at Campus Kilpatrick. And I know that supervisor Horvath asked it, but I'm actually going to take it a step farther. I want to know specifically what is being done and how it is being done effective today. Because this is something that this board, even prior to us being seated, invested a lot of resources in, a lot of resources. and expertise addressing this population, recognizing that many of those that have been trafficked are traumatized in a way that requires even more services and support. And I think it would be a crime for us to victimize once again a population that's already been victimized. Again, and we can talk offline, but the people that have brought this to my attention, I trust with my life. They've dedicated their lives to this population and that they are ringing the bell of concern, concerns me. And so I also want to know what measures are currently in place to ensure that the specialized response for CSAC youth is maintained and established protocols are not overlooked. And I know that Michelle retired and then was on 120 Day and that you all trained somebody or that she trained somebody. And I'm hoping that this individual, and I apologize for not knowing the person's name, I hope they're getting the resources necessary to continue to carry that torch that Michelle carried. Because she put LA County on the map. both state and federally as it relates to how we work with this population. And I don't know if you want to respond or if there's anything you want to add.

Yeah, Supervisor Barger, yes. And I hear that bell very loudly about the importance of our CSEC population and the importance of the protocols and the intake, et cetera, from the onset. The director that you're referring to in there has been pulled into the strike team, and maybe in retrospect, that'd be something that we need to reconsider and go back to. And also, what I mentioned to Supervisor Horvath was on the increase in the size of the CTU unit, which in many ways can be a benefit, but we need to make sure that we assess the training and the skill sets that they have to make sure that there are uh, understanding of the needs of the population, uh, from CSEC. One of the things that we have identified through, um, working with, uh, director, uh, superintendent Binion and with Joanne Para and, um, the star court judge, uh, judge cops on touring CBK is, and this is again, a situation that you all understand that has been, um, pulling at the Department on staffing needs, et cetera, is that we need to move our IDC unit to CVK. And we've been working on training IDC officers to bring over to CVK, and we're just not there yet in a position to do that with the staffing needs. But I think that will help solve some of the issues around our CSEC. to make sure that they have the best training and initiate the immediate protocols that are going on when they're introduced into CVK. So we've also been working with Beloved Village and Young Women's Freedom Center around the predispo youth at CVK for group counseling and with ARC on the post-dispo girls at CVK for the same counseling.

Okay. Do you look like you want to say something now? You're just, okay. You're just listening with anticipation. So... Thank you for that. I think this is dialogue that we're gonna continue to have to have because again, we've invested so much as a county into having a model in terms of how we work with those that have been trafficked, that it would be a crime or shame to have that all for naught. So I look forward to working more on that. And then regarding mutual aid, I understand that the agency participation is voluntary, Are there specific reasons why more municipal police departments do not participate even with reimbursable services?

Yes, Supervisor, the feedback that we've received from the County Chiefs Association has been resources, one, and then other priorities for their cities around that. And then another one that was raised was also the the reimbursable overtime goes straight to their general fund and does not really benefit the department on the expenditure of the overtime for their officers. So those are the primary considerations. But I would say that having Deputy Director Darren Arakawa now on the team, he was a past president of LA County Chiefs. He's got a good reach into LA County Chiefs to really re-encourage them to engage in this MOU.

So what kind of impact would you say it's having when they don't engage? I mean, is your team feeling the effects of not having that mutual aid in place?

I'm not sure. Anecdotally, I'd have to say that yes, that we probably are feeling that because that was really the idea of the chief is to really encourage all of the 44 cities and the county to reengage in this practice. Probation has always been a consideration for local law enforcement agencies on looking at their public safety and crime fighting strategies. So this is what was his intent to do that.

Okay, and then last but certainly not least, how is the placement of the mobile resource vans determined? And how frequently are they deployed and what is a typical duration of their deployment? I'm trying to understand this program.

So initially that started with the closure of Santa Monica and Valencia offices. So we were trying to backfill into those communities with the mobile resource vans. That has kind of expanded now into a rotation across the county through every field office that we have. In the county, twice a month is the deployment. They're there all day, and they receive anywhere between 50 to 20 clients on each deployment. And we advertise that through our website and through the field offices. That's currently the model that we've been using for now.

And how is that being received? What is the rate of clients that are utilizing it?

We'd like to see more. 15 to 20 is a slow trickle, but the positive aspects of it is the face-to-face encounters in the field with them, meeting them where they live so they don't have to drive all the way to another office, et cetera. So that has been, I think, a positive to it. And on another note, the six or seven mobile resource vans that we received through a BSCC grant are going to be also... wrapped with probation recruitment advertisement on there. So hopefully we'll get seen more throughout the county on the recruitment efforts here at LA County Probation. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Supervisor Mitchell.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I want to echo the remarks my colleagues have made about CSEC as well as decarceration. I focus a lot on DECARCERATION IN THE PAST. I WON'T REPEAT WHAT THEY SAID. COUPLE QUESTIONS. I'M CLEAR ABOUT THE NEED TO REASSIGN FIELD STAFF TO THE FACILITIES TO ALIGN WITH DOJ SETTLEMENT REQUIREMENTS. MY QUESTION IS HOW IS THE DEPARTMENT TRACKING AND EVALUATING THE IMPACT THIS SHIFT MAY HAVE ON COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, SERVICE COORDINATION FOR SUCCESSFUL REENTRY AND OVERALL OUTCOMES FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE RETURNING HOME AS WELL AS THE BROADER COMMUNITY.

RIGHT. Supervisor Mitchell that it has been the design of the reorganization of community supervision where we where we took a tremendous loss of field officers and into the facilities, but the model that the chief again is trying to Reimagine is something that he believes it's going to be a much more active engagement And that's something that we're going to have to track we're gonna have to track those first home visits within 30 days as a metric, referral services provided, and then also have good follow-up feedback surveys from our clients on the type of services that we're providing for them. So there are metrics that he is asking of our deputy director over field services to create, and he's also asking him to create a one-page... Newsletter for lack of a term that has the national model practices on that and then what the new la model looks like That will include what the metrics are going to be that'll be helpful Will the metrics include?

Tracking kind of coordination and supportive services and that other departments are providing individuals on supervised probation? Because I want to make sure that we're ensuring coordination. So will the metrics include that kind of data tracking as well?

Absolutely, yes.

Next unrelated question. Among youth currently in the facilities, how many were admitted with the low LADS score. LADS is the LA Detention Screener. And of those, do you know how many of those were non-707B kids?

Let me, I believe I have an April snapshot, if that'll give you at least a little bit of a picture. For the April intake, we had 175 youth that were were taken in, 27 of those youth scored three and below on the LADS score, 27 of the 175. Of those 27, 10 were for 707B offenses, six were for firearm possession, four CDP violations, one warrant, two suitable placement removals, and four overrides.

Okay, so of that list, how many of those were non-707B?

That's my question. 10, 11, 13, 17. 17, thank you. And I'll just go one step further. Of those, 27, eight were females, female youth.

Thank you.

So there is, if it's also, okay, Supervisor Mitchell, there is no policy determining the IDC detention decision scores, But what they have used in the practice of the last scores between 0 and 3 are considered low. Okay. 4 to 7 are medium and 8 to 12 are high.

Got it. And just a side request, if we can get an updated call-out report. My team and I were confused based on the data on the call-out report. The math wasn't mathing for us. The call-out?

So if we could get... Okay. Was that for our sick calls? Yes. Okay.

Yes. So we may need to just circle back with you to make sure that we're understanding how you're reporting the call-out. So that would be helpful for us. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Supervisor Hahn.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I certainly appreciate everyone who's here. And I don't know, I know I'm only one voice, but I feel like we might want to reevaluate always having all the other departments sitting here all day uh i mean we had doctors uh that are that are sitting here all day and i you know i i would like to reevaluate that and why that we feel like that's necessary every time we have the global presentation yeah uh personally that's how i feel um and you know i know the chief had had some personal problem but i definitely think if the chief of probation's not here I say that also kind of gives a pass to the other ones. That's just how I feel. I just feel like you guys have huge departments that you're responsible for. And you're always there. And that's part of what we were all doing. We were all leaning in with this department because it was so troubled that we wanted all of our departments to be on the ready. But I just don't know if that's necessary for these global. That would be my. I would like to excuse. I say if you're a doctor, you can...

Okay, the back row, you all can get up. It's good. We don't need... Michael?

Yeah.

You don't need to be here. It's okay.

And in the future, even I think they might send their... So you're excused. Yeah. I want DHR to stay because... Yeah, I know. They like... I just think they have huge... And by the way, we're appreciating how you've leaned in to the probation department, because we're all trying to solve this problem. I just, I'm uncomfortable having them. Okay, I just miss them.

Supervisors Rodney Collins, Department of Human Resources. Chair Solis, there's also a closed session matter. So I assume the same would go for the point that- That's how I feel, but I'm only one voice.

No, it's fine. I'm only one voice.

OK, so I wanted to talk about recruitment a little bit, because I know this department, you're really leaning into recruitment. Because at the end of the day, it's always a staffing issue. It seems like all the problems fall under that category. And recruiting new probation officers, I know you're doing hiring fairs. You're doing outreach to veterans. You're continuing to push out social media campaigns. I mean, I think we're trying to do everything. One of the issues that has come up to me from some probation officers are that we're limiting the application pool. And I know this was a... a thoughtful policy decision that we require a bachelor's degree to become a probation officer. Because I know we've been talking about You know, it's not just recruiting bodies. We want to recruit the right kind of people to ultimately look at the whole culture of this department. But just getting a bachelor's degree doesn't necessarily make you that that good person. So is there and I guess our other law enforcement agencies like Sheriff's Department just require high school diploma, which I think we used to do in probation. um so are you uh is the department open to looking at uh either doing away with the bachelor's requirement just to see you know what our pool of candidates would be or another thought that wasn't my idea it came from someone else that maybe um we hire somebody with just a high school diploma. And if this is still important to us, we give five years to get your bachelor's, just as an incentive. And I guess the idea is to increase our pool, because it just still seems like it's limited on who we're recruiting from. What say you?

Good afternoon. Deanna Carlisle, Human Resources for Probation. Yes, we actually are in discussions right now with DHR and with CEO, Class and Comp, to look at expanding and maybe looking at a program where people could, if they have 60 units or more, perhaps we could assist with educational pursuit to get them to that place. We're still in preliminary discussion on that, but it is something the department is reviewing right now. actively.

Yeah, so that would be like a community college. But I just think, you know, we're putting all of our hope and faith in a bachelor's degree like that makes you, you know, again, you have the right culture to deal with young people that doesn't necessarily equate to that. So I know I would be interested in looking at you loosening that up a bill or compromising or something to see if we can expand our pool of applicants.

Yeah, we're in active discussions currently, and that is what's being talked about is how can we support the education of our existing staff, because we do have a number of staff that came in prior to this change that we'd like to continue working for us and providing those. So how can we support the staff? How can we structure this in a way that's really going to be, as you said, meaningful and open up that pool a little bit?

Right. I would really be interested in seeing that. And then when it comes to, I know it's recruitment and then retention is part of our problem as well. And I've heard, which I'm sure you've heard too, Bobby, that officers kind of wish that they had a more consistent schedule. and so that they could plan their lives, they could spend time with their families. And is there an opportunity to better coordinate staff schedule so that you can have the staff needed to run the facility safely and also the probation officers could have a better work-life balance? Because we've heard it's sort of a catch-22, right? they don't want to come in because they're afraid they're going to be held over. And so they call out because maybe this weekend there was a wedding or a graduation or a soccer game. So is there any looking at giving more consistent scheduling of our officer or probation officers?

I think we always start with that supervisor. We're trying to give them advanced notice of what their schedule looks like. I mean, of course, everybody would love to have that perfect schedule. Um, the double-edged sword for us on that is that even if it was a perfect schedule, there's still potential that they're gonna be held over because of the issues that we're having. And then Supervisor Mitchell asked for us to take a look at that data that was reported on sick calls and no-shows. And we're remedying through that right now. But on the positive note of the sick calls though, is we've seen a decrease from Barry J and LP in double digit numbers down to, I believe we're at 8%. And I believe the chief has cited that the national average around that is around 7%. So something is working, something is getting better. I mean, certainly we still have a ways to go, but if just people showing up to work can really take care of- Of course, I mean, of course.

Have you heard that from officers that they would like a more consistent schedule?

Yes. Yeah.

I mean, I also think that goes to the morale issue as well. And like you said, of course, even though you have a consistent schedule, things could change. But I do think that might go a long way into helping the overall morale and the overall feeling of wanting to show up. So I would urge you to work on that and see if that's even possible. And then I think Supervisor Mitchell was also talking about the community supervision and the reassignment of the field staff. And I've heard that too, a lot, that we're robbing Peter to pay Paul. And how many officers do we currently have after the reassignments doing the work in the field? I don't know if you already said that.

I know that we have, hundred plus or minus that are going to be dedicated to the field supervision work that doesn't include those that are being Staying back in the office. We'll be using probation assistance in the office. We're also opening up the kiosk and we're working on Currently is that enough Well, I think if they look at the caseload ratios, it's it's very I people can argue that it's not enough. And I think that's part of the problem. I think what we have to wait and see is the new model the chief is trying to incorporate in this home visit priority versus people coming to the office. So that is definitely a metric that we're going to try and capture.

Yeah, thank you, and I think Supervisor Mitchell also was touching on are we coordinating with other, and I didn't hear you specifically say it, but I know JCOD is one of the departments that I really think you could, probation should utilize in terms of linking services for our probation clients out in the community. The Doors location I know is a great, I think it's in Long Beach, is a great one-stop shop for field probation officers. So I would urge you to, if you feel like you're a little thin in the ranks out there in the community, I do know that JCOD, I feel like, is meant for that work.

Yes, they are. And they've been a great partner and a lot of engagement with JCOD.

Yeah. And... You know, just the other issue about, and I know the issue of reassigning field staff to the facilities, it was a... a decision based on our problems with compliance and DOJ. But I will just wanted to express my concern, because when I go out to, Los Padrinos is my facility of choice, where I go mostly, and I'm so impressed with the officers who have been there, are there, who are showing up. incredibly dedicated and they have a great rapport with the young people right they've gotten themselves into you know a trust relationship and I fear and they know the young people's names and they they really care about them a lot I'm concerned sometimes when we have reassignments from the field to inside, they don't have that. And it's no fault of their own. And they do the best they can, but I'm just concerned every time we reassign field people, that just is not their wheelhouse, if you will. They have a different set of skills, which we appreciate and we need. It doesn't necessarily translate to day in and day out inside one of our juvenile facilities, so. Do you feel like the training when they get reassigned is robust enough so that they understand this? Could we do better?

Well, yes, first and foremost, we can always do better. But I think to your point on that, and thank you for mentioning that also about the staff, because I think that's often in my travels. I think I always try and start with that, because I think everybody hears all the negative stuff about people who are not showing up or not coming to work. But day in and day out, we have hundreds of employees who show up every single day with a purpose of caring for those youth. And I think that is translating to the people who are coming over. I believe in the last couple of iterations of the redeployment to the permanently assigned now, that people have come with a much greater attitude from my encounters. I've seen much greater attitude with the staff that are working there. And I think that goes to the credit of the people who have been there and that that is translating and getting passed on. But certainly to your point, we want to be better. We know it's important. And we also ask our supervisors and our leadership to model the way in having those constant conversations with the team in their travels. And we are seeing that starting to happen much more at all of our facilities.

Yeah, thank you for that. Yeah, no, I make a point of making sure I shake their hands and thank them too. They deserve that. And thanks again, and I know Supervisor Horvath brought it up about the Mother's Day and allowing them to hug without incident, I understand. So I appreciate that, and hopefully we can lean into that model and try to do that more and more. It's so important on both sides, both for the families and for the young people who are incarcerated. And I love our young men at Los Padrinos, right? They... found an assembly member isaac bryan to carry their legislation called the hug act got out of committee and it is on its way i believe to become law in the state of california so the more we can do before it becomes law we'll we'll be ready and we'll end up probably being a model for other facilities throughout California because it'll be a state law that will require it at all facilities. And if we do enough work on this side of it to see what the challenges are and what the successes are, I believe we'll be a model in how it can be rolled out throughout California. And I believe it'll be a good thing.

I do too. Thank you, it's a pleasure.

Okay, great, I wanted, Rodney, thank you for sticking around, because I wanted you to go over the core metrics on hiring, because I noticed that it looks like it's up and down, and I want to know why, what's going on, what can we do to improve the folks that we actually get to graduation, and it seems like it drops off so much, so can you go through that, or whoever? Yes.

Sure, and if I could, Supervisor Solis, is there a particular slide or area?

Can you just go through it? Start with seven, go to 17, eight. Well, just, you know, we're looking at all these things, right? Contingent office offers, background, oh, I'm looking at 17, slide 17 and 18.

Okay.

So maybe go to 18. I think that would be helpful. Go to 18.

Okay, so contingent offers. So our core hiring metrics have to do with contingent offers, background passing rate, total hires, time to hire, academy graduation rate, and turnover one year after academy. We have some additional information in there as well. This slide that we're currently looking at is the background completion time. This is a portion of our overall background. It does not include medical, psych, and poly. But our overall metrics that we've worked on for the last three years now, we went from, when I started with the department, about 280-day background. down to 85. Now, we do have a couple of challenges in the background unit. It's a small unit, and we're down a couple staff. So that impacted numbers a little bit in the last couple of months, but not significantly. Our overall total is at 94 days. We're working really hard to get it back down to that 85 goal that we have.

And do you find that because it's still a long time that people that you may have offered leave because they got a job offer somewhere else?

So one of the things we've done too is we've really worked hard to make connections with our candidates throughout the process. At the very front end, so some of the things I think Supervisor Barger brought up with recruitment is we're holding a lot of events to give people information about what the process is realistically, what to expect at every step. We go through the background. We have background investigators who talk about what the background process looks like, things like that. So we try and put that at the front end so that the candidates know what's going on. The reality is most of the time these candidates are applying for several jobs. And so, yes, I've heard other departments, including our own sheriff's department, say we're all focused on trying to be the first one to that end goal. But what we do is we do try and keep them informed every step of the way. Here's what's coming next. You know, we're still excited to have you, answering questions, giving them a point of contact to keep that open. We think we're pretty competitive overall with our timeline, but I think as Chief Arcos said, there's always room for improvement, so we continuously circle back and look at ways we can improve that timeline.

And are these candidates, do they have varying degrees of education? Like high school, some college, or four-year?

So currently, our hiring, our entry-level position is the DPO1 position for sworn, and that does require a bachelor's degree. But as I mentioned earlier, we are looking at exploring ways to work with people who maybe are close to a bachelor's degree or don't have a bachelor's degree. So we're working on a program. Hopefully, we'll be able to come up with something so that we can open that up a little bit. Currently, yes, a bachelor's degree is required for our entry-level position. Minimum.

So I know initially, Chief Farah wanted, Guillermo wanted us to go to that level because we wanted people that could have different backgrounds. So how can you tell us if we're going to the right schools, recruiting them, for example? Are they sociology majors? What are they? Or are they... you know, political science, or what are they? Where does that fall? I mean, are we going to the right schools, first of all, and are we identifying those departments where we think that there could be a nexus? I mean, that's what some other departments do. We did that with the assessor's office. People want to be you know, controllers or CPAs. I mean, I think we have to do better targeting there because you can actually get, you can do two things. You can go to a community college, talk to students there as well in some of these classes or whatever. We have good relationships with Rio Hondo and some of the other community colleges. And I would think putting that information there and saying, hey, and if you want to come work with us, we'll also have these incentive programs available so you can transfer and go get your degree eventually if we start to look at those different levels of education skill. You can do that. That's workforce training. And I think incentivizing the students, too. Because right now, a lot of students can't even afford to pay their tuition at a four-year. That's a big barrier. but I think having those kind of recruitment plans specifically, and also thinking about the culture, because a lot of our students, our young people that are in our care are from black and brown communities. What are we doing there? What does that statistic look like? Are we making a concerted effort without discrimination? I'm not saying that, but you go where the populations are. were those universities that have that high number of enrollees and create that relationship. And that's something DHR can do as well as your department and some of your own staff can do that.

So to address a few of your comments and input, we are working very closely with our contractor, with DHR. There's a program that the county is using called Handshake. Handshake specifically addresses college-level applicants, and it allows us to really hone in to the candidates. Our qualifiers are a four-year degree in a variety of areas. Yes, criminal justice is certainly one of them, but sociology, psychology. Mental health. There's a broad variety of degrees that we are currently, you know, reviewing and accepting. And we are focused in, we've seen some good metrics coming out of our current recruitment where we're seeing better alignment. So previously with the DSO and GSN, which required a, high school degree and a certain amount of units, we were seeing about a 68% candidate match. Now we're seeing up in the 70s for our candidate match, meaning that the candidates that we're reaching qualify at a higher level because we're doing all of this front-end outreach, as I mentioned.

Okay. And I wanted to ask, you know, just in terms of job offers and looking at your metrics on 19, So can you explain that, what's going on there?

Yeah, actually. So in 2024, we actually shifted our focus from the DSO-GSN to the DPO-1. We did that in November of 24. So 2025 is a mixture of candidates. We were closing out a list of candidates that we had for the other two positions, as well as now the DPO-1 as the entry level position. Now, it's still pretty early in 2026, but we've had 362 offers in the first two months. If we can keep on pace with that, which is certainly my team's goal in recruitment, the whole department's goal, we're actually going to be on pace to increase what we saw in 2025 and hopefully bring in even more contingent job offers during that timeframe.

So the last one for me is the total hires. So this is for this year. Does that look like are we going to exceed 2025, do you think?

Yes, that is our goal. If we can keep the numbers that we're getting in for the continuing job offers, the applicants, we keep that match up at a really high match as far as the candidates being able to accept and go through our process. We should outpace 2025 if we can keep the THE NUMBERS COMING IN CONSISTENTLY.

AND THEN ON ACADEMY GRADUATION RATES, 78%. LOOKS LIKE YOU DID BETTER IN 2024.

SO THE ACADEMY GRADUATION RATES, We expect that these numbers are going to rise accordingly as we're able to put more people into the academy, as we get more people coming in. Our first graduating class, we saw six of seven attendees graduate. We are offering some of the attendees have to drop out due to personal reasons, things like that. We're actually bringing them back and trying to make sure that we get them through. Sorry. Yeah, we're, started Academy versus graduated doesn't necessarily mean separated. Sometimes it can mean that they're continued. Because if you go to the turnover, which is the next slide, We're at a very, very high rate. Our turnover of new hires who leave after they complete the academy, I really want to highlight this, for 26 is zero currently. In 25, it was 21. But of that 21, 20 of those were the GSN DSOs. So that means they had started earlier. Only one DPO1. So since we opened up the DPO1 program, Recruitment in 2024, we've only had one DPO1 leave within a year of starting. I think what that really speaks to is all the hard work that they're doing in the academy to provide mentoring, training, support systems for these new staff as well as, I mean, there's a myriad of factors, but it really is showing, I think, in our turnover for those new hires. It went from a very significant, we were very concerned with that And we focused a lot of attention on trying to make sure that we mitigate as much as we can and we hold on to those new staff and we provide them support even after they leave the academy and they're in the juvenile halls. And we believe that that shows in that metric.

And how are we doing with the female ratio of applicants?

our staff ratio. So I don't have the numbers, but typically we're at about a 50-50. Sometimes we go as high as 75% female to 25% male. Our numbers are pretty good. In fact, some of the challenges come in with staffing appropriately in the juvenile halls for the males as opposed to for the females because we do have very good alignment as far as our recruitment in all of the areas that we'd like to see. We We very closely mirror our population in the county so that we can better support our clients.

Okay. I won't ask questions that my colleagues already asked, but I think I'm glad to hear that there's so much conversation, communication with the courts, with Espinoza, with everybody involved. It seems like that's been a big improvement, but we need to continue there and then your ongoing meetings that you're going to have to see how we can try to get some reduction in their release for these young people. That could go a long way. And I commend you all for helping to engage with the parents of these young youth that are in our care. And I think you guys should be doing it for every holiday, not just Mother's Day, every holiday. Because each kid, when I would go there, and I would go repeatedly to LP and Juvenile Hall when it was open, On any occasion, they love receiving cards or gifts or sports. I mean, you know, things like that, sports items. I just think it lets them know that they're not forgotten. And even though they may feel isolated, that we as a county care about them. And I think you do have the budget to do that. So I would strongly recommend that. and make sure that that happens more regularly and that you have some kind of form of, I don't know, used to be a probation group, some musicians that got together and they would play on Sundays for the parents, you know, a little ad hoc group, you know, that would just, it's just to distract people to get their mind off of having been there seven days a week. It could help the staff too, okay. All right, thank you. Seeing no further questions here, then let's go to public comment.

Madam Chair, there are no in-person speakers who have signed up to speak on this item. We will go to remote callers. Caller with phone number 323-896, your line is open. Please state your name and begin.

Yes, good morning. Good afternoon. This is Mel again. This was very helpful. I have a question. With this current community supervision approach, how does it help with the transient population to keep in compliance with ADA requirements coupled with the protecting employee rights? What allowances are in place for supervisors and directors since they do not apply for the probation assistance positions? next i noticed that well how can we be more our african-american population as it relates to employees is very minimal as far as the new hires want to know what we can do to be more intentional we used to attend the black college hbcu expo fairs but it seemed like we missed the last two and the most recent one in compton and then the last question is if a parent needs help with a child who's headed down the wrong way what can we do where can we send them i know we used to have a six or one client petitions but What do we do in today's probation to be able to help those parents who have a child that may be headed the wrong way to avoid law enforcement contact? That's all. Thank you.

That's a great question. I hope we can connect you with DYD because there are services out there right now. Thank you.

Thank you. Roy Humphries, your line is open. Please begin.

Yes. Having monitored these topics for this forum for a decade plus, ad nauseum and futility, certain elements persist, poisoned by protracted criminal negligence of this board. Correction in a timely manner will need a change in leadership, and tens of billions of dollars. AI is providing a pool of persons in need of life-sustaining employment. The failure to fully fund the DA, as noted last meeting, is the tip of the iceberg of the criminal negligence as you waste time, resources, and billions on your career eight U.S. codes. 1324 violations with some people called treason. Nothing will change until the Democrat four are shown the door. God bless America and God bless President Trump.

Thank you. Samaya Bray, your line is open.

Please begin. Well, for children and Department of Social Services or any children period, I just want that it's more of them being honest and not being more corrupt because there's a lot of families out here that are taking kids out of probation camps and deciding to not help them out. I'm actually one of those kids where I was in the 300-602 ward, probation youth and everything, and I'm still currently in a situation, as of now, with my current child, she's one years old, with DCFS corruption, but it's still as far as me coming from juvenile camps. I came from Dirt to Kirby, and I've been trying to get assistance with housing. But it's just like, you guys just have these kids here, and then you just let them out on the street. It's not like you guys are really helping them.

Thank you. Madam Chair, there are no other remote speakers to address the board. That concludes the time for public comment on these items.

These reports will be received and filed.

Without objection. Without objection. Such will be the order.

Madam Chair, if there are also no objections, items CS1 through CS4, CS5, one case, and CS6 will be continued to June 16, 2026. Without objection.

Without objection.