UPDATE: In a shocking move, the L.A. County Board of Supervisors has approved a $2 million settlement for Chief Executive Officer Fesia Davenport, stirring public outrage. The decision was made behind closed doors just three months ago and has become a hot topic at the Los Angeles Current Affairs Forum.
During the luncheon, Supervisor Lindsey Horvath expressed her dissatisfaction with the settlement, stating, “We were faced with two bad options.” Horvath, who has been vocal about the county’s pressing budget challenges, disagreed with the hefty payout demanded by Davenport, yet felt compelled to maintain a functional government.
The controversy stems from Measure G, a voter-approved initiative passed in November 2022 that will transition the county’s chief executive role to an elected position by 2028. Davenport claims the measure caused her significant “reputational harm, embarrassment, and physical, emotional and mental distress,” justifying her demand for the substantial settlement.
Critics, including Measure G campaign member Morgan Miller, are outraged, stating, “Los Angeles County residents should be outraged,” calling the payout a “blatant misuse of public money.” Horvath, who championed the measure, had originally promised that it would not impose additional costs on taxpayers.
The settlement was kept under wraps until inquiries from LAist uncovered it. Horvath suggested that the agreement should have included additional language to prevent future legal disputes. Supervisor Janice Hahn defended her vote for the settlement, saying it followed legal advice, emphasizing that she never criticized Davenport during her advocacy for Measure G.
Davenport has been on medical leave since early October and has indicated plans to return at the start of next year. Historically, large payouts for county department heads are not uncommon, but they usually occur when an employee departs, not during ongoing employment.
This decision has sparked discussions about transparency within the county government. Legal experts like David Loy, from the First Amendment Coalition, highlight the requirements under the Brown Act, indicating that finalized votes on settlements must be disclosed but do not need to be proactively reported.
As L.A. County grapples with a multitude of pressing issues—including a costly fire recovery effort and a deepening homeless crisis—the implications of this settlement will resonate with taxpayers. The county’s financial management and expenditure decisions will remain under scrutiny as the public demands accountability and clarity.
WHAT’S NEXT? The fallout from this decision will likely prompt further discussions about government transparency and spending practices, especially as the county prepares for the upcoming elections and the transition to an elected county executive. Residents and officials alike are closely watching how the situation unfolds in the coming weeks.