UPDATE: Los Angeles County has just approved a controversial $2 million settlement for its CEO, Fesia Davenport, sparking outrage among local officials and residents. The decision, made in a closed-door vote, has raised questions about fiscal responsibility and transparency in local government.
During a luncheon at the Los Angeles Current Affairs Forum, Supervisor Lindsey Horvath expressed her discontent over the payout, which she claims was necessary to maintain a functional government. “We were faced with two bad options,” Horvath stated, highlighting the difficult circumstances surrounding the payment. She acknowledged that while she disagreed with Davenport’s demand, the need to prioritize taxpayer savings was paramount.
The settlement stems from the fallout of Measure G, a voter-approved initiative passed in November that will transform the county executive position into an elected role by January 2028. Davenport has claimed that the measure caused her significant “reputational harm, embarrassment, and physical, emotional, and mental distress.” Critics, including Morgan Miller, who campaigned for Measure G, have condemned the payout as a “blatant misuse of public money,” arguing that such severance is unwarranted for a position undergoing restructuring.
Horvath, who played a key role in drafting Measure G, had previously assured voters that the initiative would not incur additional costs to taxpayers. She is now advocating for more robust settlement agreements to minimize future legal risks. “The agreement should have included language to ensure a clean break,” Horvath remarked, emphasizing the need for accountability.
Davenport has been on medical leave since earlier this month and is expected to return in early 2024. The county has a history of substantial payouts to departing executives, but such large settlements are usually reserved for when officials exit their positions. For context, former county leaders have received significant sums, including $1.5 million to Davenport’s predecessor, Sachi Hamai, who cited harassment as the reason for her departure.
WHAT’S NEXT: The implications of this settlement are profound, as it highlights the ongoing financial challenges facing Los Angeles County, including recovery efforts from devastating fires and deep federal budget cuts. As local leaders continue to grapple with these issues, the fallout from this decision could shape future governance and policy discussions.
The public and officials alike are watching closely as more information on the settlement unfolds. This situation raises critical questions about the management of taxpayer funds and the ethical responsibilities of public officials. As developments continue to emerge, residents are encouraged to stay informed and voice their concerns.
Stay tuned for further updates on this developing story, as the implications of this decision ripple through Los Angeles County governance.
