The Brief

Should you be worried about climate change? The answer used to be debatable — literally.

Way back in 2007, NPR aired a debate over the proposition that “Global Warming Is Not a Crisis.” The panel had six commentators, divided equally into two sides. Those on the “not a crisis” side (which included Jurassic Park author and nonscientist Michael Crichton) argued that much of the current alarm was based on “ignorance.” Sure, the climate was changing, but that wasn’t anything new, they said. They weren’t convinced carbon dioxide was driving it this time around, either.

Those stuck arguing that global warming was not not a crisis — an awkward double negative — countered that the scientific community was in near-universal agreement that CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions were at fault. They laid out the dire consequences (rising seas, shrinking ice caps, warming oceans) and called on the audience to think of the planet their children and grandchildren would inherit.

Afterward, the conservative think tank The Heartland Institute declared that the climate “realists” had beaten the “alarmists.” Polling the audience, NPR found that 57 percent thought that global warming was a crisis before the debate, but only 42 percent did afterward. The results seemed to confirm the fears that participant Gavin Schmidt, a NASA climate scientist, had outlined on his blog ahead of the event. “Is this kind of rhetorical jousting useful for clarifying issues of science … ? Or does it just validate the least serious opposition?” he wrote.

In 2010, around the time when these kinds of debates were popular, almost half of Americans falsely believed there was a lot of disagreement among scientists that climate change was happening. Fast-forward to today, and the public’s understanding has evolved. More Americans acknowledge that scientists agree on climate change. People are also increasingly worried about the consequences: The intense floods, wildfires, and heat waves battering the country have sparked concern not only for the future, but for the present.

And yet the old way of discussing climate change — framing it as a debate — appears to be coming back into fashion, this time spurred by the federal government.

A new report from the Department of Energy, “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate,” arrived in late July. “Climate change is a challenge — not a catastrophe,” Chris Wright, the Trump-appointed energy secretary, declared in the foreword. He wrote that the public conversation on climate change had “drifted from the science” because of exaggerated media coverage, potentially leading to “misguided policies based on fear.”

While the report acknowledged that yes, the planet is getting warmer, and yes, it’s caused by humans, it argued that these changes aren’t as bad as you think. It contended that carbon dioxide is good for plant growth, that computer models are overstating predictions of future warming, and that sea level rise isn’t accelerating. These conclusions were no surprise considering that the report’s five authors — John Christy, Judith Curry, Steve Koonin, Ross McKitrick, and Roy Spencer — have a long track record of pushing back against mainstream narratives about climate change.

Among those who care deeply about climate change, the report sounded alarm bells. Critics pointed to its use of selectively chosen data. A fact-check from the data journalism nonprofit Carbon Brief identified more than 100 cases of false or misleading claims in the 140-page document, with some researchers saying their cited work had been mischaracterized. Some scientists, led by Andrew Dessler at Texas A&M University, have begun organizing an academic response to the report.

“It is a shock to see the U.S. government, in an official document, deny scientific realities and spew so much disinformation,” said Rachel Cleetus, a senior policy director for climate and energy at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

But getting scientists riled up might have been intentional. One of the report’s authors, Koonin, recently told E&E News that the expected pushback to the DOE report is part of a long-standing effort to create a “red team, blue team” exercise that could revive the “debate” over climate change.

“Red team, blue team” is a reference to an adversarial military exercise used to expose weaknesses. The idea, with roots in 19th-century Prussian war games, took off in the U.S. during the Cold War in the 1960s and has since become popular in cybersecurity. Companies will hire a “red” team to try to poke holes in their “blue” team’s digital defenses. These provocations help companies bolster their defenses against actual hackers.

The red team, blue team idea was floated by an EPA official during President Donald Trump’s first term as a way to challenge mainstream climate science. Before that, it had been raised by Spencer, another author on the 2025 report, as early as 2009. For a matter like climate change, however, a loud red-team attack has the effect of making the whole field look wobbly, split into two equally divided sides.

“It can really create perceptions of false equivalence in the public sphere,” said Max Boykoff, an environmental studies professor at the University of Colorado Boulder.

Matt Burgess, an environmental economist at the University of Wyoming, said that the context of the DOE report — the Trump administration’s broader assault on climate information — makes it hard to take it seriously. While the DOE report was underway, officials removed congressionally mandated climate reports on how climate change affects life in the United States from the federal website they lived on. The administration has also cut billions in funding for climate programs and research, and has proposed halting projects that monitor climate change.

On the same day the DOE report was released in July, the Environmental Protection Agency fired another shot at climate science, saying it would roll back the Obama-era finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health — the scientific foundation that allows the agency to address climate change. In its proposal to repeal this so-called “endangerment” finding, the EPA cited the new DOE report, and many have interpreted it as a pretext for the EPA’s announcement.

So the “blue team” pushed back. Two environmental groups, the Environmental Defense Fund and the Union of Concerned Scientists, filed a lawsuit against both agencies earlier this month, arguing that Wright had secretly arranged for five “hand-picked skeptics” to write a report challenging the scientific consensus on climate change. The lawsuit alleges that involving a “secret, unaccountable” group in policymaking concerns violated federal law. (The DOE did not respond to a request for comment for this story.)

But scientists may want to be careful in how they push back at the report, since arguing over fringe viewpoints may have the effect of amplifying them, falling into the same trap created by the climate debates of 20 years ago. One study from 2023 found that disinformation about climate change was more emotionally compelling and persuasive to people than scientific facts. To Cleetus, the government’s revival of the climate “debate” is a distraction from the task at hand. “We’re losing precious, precious time to help stave off these terrible impacts of climate change,” Cleetus said. “And I don’t know what we will say to our children and grandchildren, that this is what we wasted our time on.”

Much of the polarization around climate change appears to stem from disagreements over what to do about it. In recent years, many advocates have justified faster action — more regulations, fewer fossil fuels, and more green technology — by appealing to “science.” The Biden administration even enshrined “listen to science” as its official policy. But while science can inform policy decisions, it doesn’t answer the question of how to navigate the complex moral and cultural issues that come with reimagining life after fossil fuels.

The political left has used the science-has-all-the-answers framing to shut down important conversations about real trade-offs, said Travis Fisher, who helped organize the DOE report. He is also the director of energy and environmental policy at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. He says that by using “the science” as justification to push through controversial policies, it invites skepticism in science as an objective force.

“There’s only so many times you can get hit with that, like, trademark ‘science’ club before you start saying, ‘Hey, what’s actually in that club that you have?’” Fisher said. “‘Is it as solid as you say it is?’”

It bears repeating that upward of 97 percent of climate experts agree that human-caused climate change is happening, but there are many areas of climate science that merit further study. For example, the question of whether climate change affects tornadoes (not yet clear) or just how quickly and strongly CO2 emissions will drive global warming in the future. (The DOE report argues that the planet is less sensitive to CO2 than commonly believed, while scientist James Hansen argues that it’s actually more sensitive.) Science is always evolving as new evidence comes in, and it takes many studies to create a sufficient body of evidence before a causal argument can be accepted.

Take that famous 97 percent stat from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, for example. According to the organization, it came from “not just … a single study, but by a converging stream of evidence over the past two decades from surveys of scientists, content analyses of peer-reviewed studies, and public statements issued by virtually every membership organization of experts in this field.”

To Burgess, the environmental economist, the messy context around the DOE report represents a missed opportunity — particularly because he thinks the critics make some good points. There are certain narratives, especially around the severity of climate impacts, he said, “that are underappreciated in the mainstream discourse.”

But the solution, Burgess said, isn’t war-room style debates — it’s open, transparent collaboration between what might be described as the “blue team” and “red team.” As an example of a way to encourage thoughtful engagement, he pointed to the University of Pennsylvania’s Adversarial Collaboration Project, which encourages scholars who disagree to work together to resolve polarizing scientific disputes.

“We do ourselves and the community a favor when we dispassionately try to, through things like adversarial collaboration, get to the bottom of genuine scholarly debates about how to interpret facts,” Burgess said. “Even if we don’t like the people who interpret the facts differently than we do.”

Wright has hinted that the DOE’s report, which is open to the public to comment, may just be the start of the administration’s move to stir up debate over climate change. “We’ll probably have public events here in D.C. this fall,” he said in an interview with CNN earlier this month. “We want to have an honest dialogue with the American people about climate change.”

Burgess interprets the whole episode around report differently. “I think it’s just basically another opportunity for people to yell at each other online and go back to their silos,” he said.

This article originally appeared in Grist at https://grist.org/politics/us-government-revive-climate-change-debate/.

Grist is a nonprofit, independent media organization dedicated to telling stories of climate solutions and a just future. Learn more at Grist.org

Federal immigration agents used racial slurs, including “wet” and “tonks,” to identify people to target while sweeping through Los Angeles last year, according to text messages cited in a new court filing asking a federal judge there to bar agents from racial profiling.

Plaintiffs in the Vasquez Perdomo vs. Noem case filed a motion for a preliminary injunction on Monday, arguing that agents had conducted an “ongoing campaign of suspicionless and discriminatory detentive stops” across the Central District of California even after the high-profile street raids of summer 2025 had ceased. As one ICE agent admitted in a deposition, “We’re [still] doing the same thing [as “Operation at Large”] just with a different name.”

The filing includes evidence from months of discovery, including body camera footage and depositions of agents, ordered by U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong after the U.S. Supreme Court stayed an earlier temporary restraining order in the case last September.

Attorneys with the American Civil Liberties Union, a coalition of advocacy organizations and private attorneys argue in the court filing that the new evidence undercuts the government’s argument to the Supreme Court that agents were relying on specific intelligence about individuals instead of race when deciding who to stop.

In bodycam footage, according to court documents, a Border Patrol agent at the Hollywood Home Depot says, “There was a guy, I’m pretty sure he’s wet he was just sitting in that minivan.”

In one text message cited in the filing, an agent says, “Yeah, just plug us in wherever you see some tonks and we’ll jump out.” In another message, an agent describes seeing “tonks everywhere selling food.”

“Tonks” is a derogatory term Border Patrol agents have used, reportedly derived from the sound a heavy item like a flashlight makes on a migrant’s skull. In 2019, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the parent agency for Border Patrol, issued guidance explicitly stating “the term ‘tonk’ is not appropriate” due to its derogatory connotation, according to emails and text messages disclosed to HuffPost under the Freedom of Information Act.

In one deposition an immigration agent bluntly says that the suspicious appearance they look for is “Older Hispanic male.” In their filing, plaintiffs' attorneys argue that immigration agents engaged in unlawful practices by not developing "pre-stop individualized, particularized assessment of reasonable suspicion" of targets, but instead used racial profiling to detain anyone they believed to be low-income and Latino. Such actions swept up U.S. citizens and violated the Constitution’s prohibition on unreasonable search and seizures.

The court filing made public Monday reveals a May 2025 directive from Immigration and Customs Enforcement headquarters telling field officers to “turn the creativity knob up to 11” and arrest more “collaterals.” That’s the agency’s term for people who aren’t the original target of an operation but who are encountered in the process.

ACLU attorneys said the agents’ practices, including racially profiling Latinos, were condoned and directed from the top.

“This was not a rogue method of operationalizing agency orders; it was precisely what agency leadership desired,” the filing states.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs said ICE doubled the ranks of its field teams, “thanks in part to recruitment ads employing white nationalist messaging.” The filing says some plaintiffs and organizational members, including those who are U.S. citizens, have already been stopped more than once.

While the filing relies on communications from agents’ cell phones, most agents involved in the L.A. raids have yet to turn over their devices.

Last month, during a contentious hearing, Frimpong weighed whether to hold the federal government in contempt for failing to comply with a court order to turn over agents' cell phones.

The government said in court that of 1,400 Border Patrol agents involved in Los Angeles operations last year, more than half reported using their personal cell phones.

The federal government said that it asked agents to upload any data from their personal phone to a government repository, a compromise created with its union designed to limit any workplace grievances. But only 88 agents volunteered to turn their phones in for forensic imaging, and none of them have been imaged yet.

Plaintiffs argued that the government deserved sanctions by “straight-up saying they will not comply with an order because their employees might complain if they do.”

Progress on the government phones hasn’t gone much faster. In court, lawyers for the federal government revealed they have only been imaging 3 government phones every 2 weeks, without knowing the exact number of government phones but estimating around “200-300 still to go.” That’s a rate that would take the government close to four years to comply with the court’s order.

“There’s enough to suggest that this is a system-wide practice of identifying people through racial slurs,” said Mayra Joachín, an attorney with the ACLU.

CalMatters has reached out to the Department of Homeland Security for comment.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

Southern Californians are in for a little relief this week after another muggy weekend.

The region is expected to experience a slight cooling trend over the course of the week, though forecasters say conditions will still be hotter than normal and continue to put people at risk of heat-related illness.

Highs in most of L.A. and Orange counties will be in the 80s and 90s through Friday. Some interior parts of L.A. County, much of the Inland Empire and the region’s deserts are expected to hit triple digits.

Don’t get too used to the — somewhat — milder temperatures either. Forecasters say the heat will soon return with a vengeance.

The high pressure system that’s been driving much of this summer’s weather has retreated eastward, forecasters say, allowing for the cooling trend. But the system is expected to migrate back toward Southern California this week and bring the heat with it.

Temperatures will tick up steadily from Friday to Sunday, when parts of the San Fernando and San Gabriel valleys are expected to reach 100 degrees or higher.

Dangerous beach conditions

Meanwhile, forecasters continue to warn of dangerous currents and surf at the beach.

For the last several weeks, Southern California’s beaches have been pummeled by strong rip currents, big waves and surging tides.

Officials are particularly concerned about the hazardous conditions as people flock to the beach to escape the heat

Lifeguards performed nearly 2,000 rescues over the weekend in L.A. County alone, according to the county Fire Department’s lifeguard division.

And the upcoming weekend is expected to present similar hazards for beachgoers. South-facing stretches of coastline will experience the most severe currents and waves.

Officials recommend checking surf conditions before heading to the beach and, if you do go in the water, stay near lifeguards and listen to their instructions. It’s also a good idea to stay off of tidal rocks and jetties.

If you end up caught in a rip current while swimming, relax, stay calm and float as much as possible to conserve energy. To escape the current, swim parallel to the beach, then at an angle toward the beach. Do not try to swim against the current. If you can’t reach the shore, call and wave for help.

The surf conditions are being driven by a series of tropical storms churning hundreds of miles to the southeast in the Pacific Ocean.

One of them, Hurricane Fausto, has been pushing its storm surge towards Southern California since it formed off Central America on July 16. Since then it has moved toward Hawaii, becoming a Category 2 hurricane over the weekend. It is now weakening.

This week, another storm, Hurricane Genevieve, is running parallel to the Mexican coast about 500 miles off the tip of Baja California. Genevieve was briefly classified as a Category 5 hurricane on Monday.

The storms, along with swells originating from storms in the Southern Hemisphere, have combined to create dangerous surf here.

“It's been definitely a long period of very frequent and hazardous rip currents,” said National Weather Service meteorologist Bryan Lewis.

There is also a chance the surge could cause minor coastal flooding.

It always sucks when your favorite L.A. restaurant closes. Multiply that feeling tenfold if you happen to be vegan and already live as an outlier. While Los Angeles has long been seen as a hub for plant eaters, lately, not everyone has felt that way.

Donna Jean, an Italian-inspired vegan restaurant in Sherman Oaks, which shuttered at the end of 2025, was just one L.A. restaurant to close in recent years. Chef Roy Elam opened Donna Jean, which became a beloved community staple, in 2022, naming it in honor of his mother who died of breast cancer but switched to a vegan diet in her final months, in lieu of another round of chemo. The restaurant became known for preparing all its pizzas, pastas and sauces from scratch while using top-notch ingredients.

Donna Jean's cast iron mac and cheese, #1 crush pizza, kombucha on draft and lasagna.

(

Courtesy Donna Jean

)

“It really felt like a small-time kind of community restaurant in a lot of ways,” said Josh McClain, a former manager, going as far as calling it a “lifeline” for certain customers with niche allergies.

In spite of its dedicated fanbase, at the end of the day the restaurant just never was able to expand beyond them, said Elam, who still operates the original Donna Jean restaurant in San Diego.

“We could have a $10,000 day and that would be our whole entire week, and every other day would be, like, $0.”

Donna Jean's sitting vacant on Woodman Ave, after closing in December.

(

Ezra Salkin

/

LAist

)

It’s a problem spread across the local landscape. Other notable vegan restaurants in the Valley to have closed over the last five years include Krimsey’s, Mamicon’s Vegan Mexican Restaurant, Sugar Taco and the Van Nuys location of Grain Cafe.

It got us thinking .... What do plant-based diners do when their favorite restaurants go away? Stay home and cook? Eat vegan dishes at omnivore restaurants? Give up the lifestyle altogether? We spoke to a handful of vegan Los Angeles diners to get a better grasp.

Veganism out of fashion?

McClain, a former manager at Donna Jean, became vegan during the last five years of Covid, initially due to supply-chain fears related to the availability of meat. He does believe there’s substance behind conversations about veganism going out of fashion. Post Donna Jean, rather than eating out, he and his girlfriend have been staying home, disconnecting — as much as possible — “from the structures of agriculture,” he said.

Josh McClain and his girlfriend have begun the practice of homesteading, making their own tofu, sourdough, soy and oat milk.

(

Courtesy Josh McClain

)

The couple have started the practice of homesteading, making their own tofu, sourdough, soy and oat milk, continually dialing in and refining their processes, as being vegan “can get pretty expensive,” he said.

 “Typically, most people that are vegan, they have the time to be able to do so," he added. "They have the money to be able to do so. They have the time to figure out dishes, test, and experiment."

He acknowledged that it’s only in recent history that vegans have been able to go out and enjoy restaurants like everyone else. To do it at home, he admits: “It’s a privileged position.”

Natural correction

Eric Eichelberger, a local filmmaker who’s been vegetarian across different cities since 1994, has the hindsight of remembering what it was like before the boom of the 2010s. What’s happening now is a natural correction, he said, and nothing to be overly concerned about.

“There was a fad of opening vegan restaurants. And so there became, just like anything, too many to really support the people who were vegan, vegetarian, whatever,” he said. “It’s now back to a reasonable amount.”

Eric Eichelberger believes if you have great food and a great price point, vegan restaurants can survive.

(

Courtesy Eric Eichelberger

)

That doesn’t mean Eichelberger hasn’t lost some of his go-tos. Real Food Daily comes to mind, but he stands by a simple truism: “If you have a great price point and you have great food, you're going to survive.”

He also added that places that have maintained a hippy, punk or political approach have done better, with some spots having been around for decades.

For example, he points to Studio City’s Leonors Organic (which opened in 1985), and Oh Happy Day Vegan Café and Grocery (in 1977), which sadly burnt down during the Altadena fires, though the owner is reportedly looking for a new location.

“It’s all these sort of vegan, Bacari-like kind of places that are closed now,” he said, referring to the hip — and pricey — Silver Lake omnivore restaurant. Veggie Grill is always a dependable option, he said. (One of their locations closed in the Valley, as well.)

Vegan heaven

Jacinda, who comes from Texas, is an optimist about L.A.'s vegan food scene.

(

Courtesy Jacinda

)

Jacinda, a customer care associate for a plant-based brand, has been a strict vegan for 16 years. (She declined to give her last name for personal safety reasons). Hailing from Lubbock, Texas, she’s one of the optimists. “L.A. is [still] vegan heaven,” she said.

As someone who likes to eat her way around town, “Every time I see one [restaurant] close, I see a new one open,” she said. “[To this day] I don’t know how somebody could go eat at every vegan restaurant here.” 

Still, every closure, like her local favorite Hijo De Su Madre, is “heartbreaking,” she added.

But what if all the restaurants did close? “It's just not an option to change either,” she said. “We will do whatever we have to do [to stay vegan]. If we have to eat beans and corn bread at home, then that's what we're going to do.”

Supper clubs baby!

Jef Travis, a hospitality professional, has been vegan since 1991, taking on the lifestyle initially as a form of rebellion against his father who insisted on taking him hunting as a kid. As prices continue to rise, Travis predicts some vegan restaurants will continue to exist, but they’ll be expensive, and will exist mainly for special occasions. 

As produce prices continue to surge, sometimes faster than meat, due to a mix of agricultural labor shortage and escalating oil and fertilizer prices, he said things won’t get any easier for restaurants.

“Hopefully those costs will begin to plateau,” he said, as we see more streamlined mechanized processes be implemented, and as we cross the threshold into the much-vaunted AI-driven fourth agricultural revolution. 

In the meantime, Travis urged other vegans to try and stay ahead.

“Don’t neglect the frozen food section” at your grocery store, where you can stock up on produce that’s flash frozen at the peak of ripeness. That, as well as finding gathering places, “Supper clubs, supper clubs, supper clubs, baby! Let's supper-away and do it together. Let’s go to the grocery store!”  

Leaving the lifestyle

If the restaurants continue to close, Eden Gordley, an actor who started her journey toward veganism six years ago to help with sinus issues, said she might be discouraged enough to leave the lifestyle herself.

“I would say that it's not easy to cook for yourself all the time," she said. "It's really hard. Anybody who is able to do that is, like, extremely privileged.”

 “I'd be discouraged to eat out {as well},” she added, noting that vegan dishes at omnivore restaurants aren’t really reliable options. This goes for national restaurants and fast food chains, too, not just mom and pops, who often use L.A. and similar big blue cities as test markets for specialized trends. Some dishes disappear overnight, she said, and others that find their way onto menus often aren’t given much thought or intention. “They just aren’t good.”

So, what’s next for vegan restaurants in L.A.? Donna Jean’s Elam said: “This is the one thing I noticed about L.A., is that when you're new, they care. When they can't have you anymore, they care. But the middle part — that’s the hard part.”

Civilian commissions that review the conduct of local law enforcement agencies have long been criticized for lacking teeth.

One way to remedy that is to give the civilian groups subpoena power so they can compel witnesses to testify or a department to provide documents.

Law enforcement agencies, including the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, have pushed back against that idea. But in 2020, L.A. County voters approved Measure R, which gave subpoena power to the Sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission.

Six years later, the commission is still having trouble getting the department to comply.

“L.A. County voters said loud and clear in 2020 we wanted real oversight with subpoena power.. for real accountability of the largest Sheriff’s Department in the nation,” said Hans Johnson, chair of the Sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission. “We still don’t have it."

A big part of the delay is state labor law that requires the county to meet and confer with the union that represents sheriff’s deputies about the impacts of any changes in the law, including subpoena power.

It's a process that has taken years.

Johnson and others accuse the union and county lawyers of dragging their feet. He said the commission is supposed to have independent and unfettered oversight of the Sheriff’s Department, which has a history of deputy misconduct.

The oversight commission has gone to court to challenge the meet-and-confer requirement.

Others cite additional factors that may be causing problems and slowing the process, including the number of agencies involved and the fact that the oversight committee doesn’t have authority to use lawyers that are independent from the county.

The Sheriff’s Department has said it cooperates with the oversight commission to the extent the law allows.

A beating leaves unanswered questions

The oversight panel wants access to several case files.

In 2024, an L.A. County sheriff’s deputy pleaded guilty in federal court in connection with beating a transgender man in Whittier a year earlier. The incident was caught on video, and the deputy admitted later that he retaliated against Emmett Brock, a 23-year-old high school teacher who was on his way home from work when he gave the deputy the middle finger.

Prosecutors said Deputy Joseph Benza III punched Brock repeatedly and bashed his head onto the pavement.

In a plea agreement, Benza admitted to one felony count of deprivation of rights under color of law. The FBI found a group of deputies had exchanged text messages with Benza discussing how to cover up his action, according to the Los Angeles Times. Eight deputies were relieved of duty as a result, the Times reported.

But after reviewing the incident, the process left the oversight commission with questions, according to Johnson.

Why did the initial internal review of the Feb. 10, 2023 incident find that Benza had committed no violations of department policy?

Why was a sergeant who had been involved in the incident allowed to head an internal investigation into what occurred?

And what steps has the Sheriff’s Department taken to ensure such a coverup doesn’t happen again?

In an effort to get those answers, the commission issued a subpoena to the department in February 2025 seeking use-of-force reports, body-worn camera and bystander footage as well as witness statements related to the incident. The Sheriff’s Department refused to comply, according to Johnson.

“It was another failure by the Sheriff Department to respect and comply with oversight,” Johnson said.

On the advice of county lawyers, the department cited state laws and rulings by the L.A. County Employee Relations Commission that require the county to meet and confer with labor unions that may be affected by the subpoenas before complying with them.

“California labor relations law, the County’s Employee Relations Commission (ERCOM), and recent court decisions legally obligate the County to meet-and-confer with its union partners,” county counsel said in a statement.

The executive director of the Association of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs said the negotiations should be fairly simple: “How is the deputy going to be compensated? How are they going to be notified? Should they appear in their uniform? Should they appear in a suit?”

Other reasons for the delay

County counsel said lawyers for the county and union “have communicated extensively” and met seven times regarding Measure R.

Yet the statement didn’t say why the negotiations had not concluded six years after Measure R was passed.

One possible reason, according to Hsieh, is the number of parties involved in the negotiations, which includes the Sheriff’s Department, the county Board of Supervisors, the Civilian Oversight Commission, the county chief executive office and two labor unions.

“This is a multi-party process and because of that there are a lot of different interests,” he said.

Robert Bonner, a former federal judge and one-time chair of the oversight commission, argued the meet-and-confer requirement is a stalling tactic by the deputies union and shouldn’t apply to the issuance of subpoenas.

“These subpoenas are issued under state law. There is no meet and confer obligation whatsoever,” Bonner said. “The county counsel’s argument is weak.”

The meet-and-confer requirement under labor law can be an obstacle for effective oversight of law enforcement organizations, according to Cameron McEllhiney, executive director of the National Association for the Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement.

“Labor laws, officer bill of rights — all of those can become impediments to oversight,” McEllhiney said. “It's a challenge everywhere.”

County lawyers also represent both the Sheriff’s Department and the Civilian Oversight Commission in negotiations.

The current chair of the commission said that’s a conflict of interest.

“County counsel is not acting in the interests of pursuing oversight in Los Angeles County through the COC,” Johnson said.

Bonner agreed, saying the county counsel’s office can’t fairly represent the interests of both the Sheriff’s Department and the oversight commission.

“It's taking a position that is adverse and in conflict with the commission’s position with respect to enforcing its subpoenas,” Bonner said.

A Los Angeles Grand Jury came to a similar conclusion. In a report last month, the panel also found that county counsel’s representation of both the Sheriff’s Department and the Civilian Oversight Commission does constitute a conflict of interest..

“Recent trends in oversight now call into question whether they can equally and fully represent the ‘public interest,’” the report stated.

“County Counsel is conflicted in equally representing the BOS [Board of Supervisors], LASD and the Sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission,” the report continued “Accordingly, we recommend: COC would have its own legal staff, i.e., no longer represented by County Counsel.”

In a statement to LAist, county counsel denied any conflict, and essentially said it's not a conflict because, technically, the commission is an extension of the Board of Supervisors.

The statement read: County counsel’s legal advice to the oversight panel does not create an attorney-client relationship “separate and distinct” from counsel’s relationship with the Board of Supervisors, “so it is not possible for a conflict of interest to exist when County labor issues are at issue.”

It continued: “In fact, the courts viewed the COC and Sheriff as all one County entity for the purposes of labor issues.”

What’s next?

The oversight commission, meantime, decided to go around county counsel in an attempt to enforce the Brock subpoena and two others — one involving the beating of Joseph Perez in July 2020 in East Valinda and one involving the fatal shooting of Andres Guardado in June of 2020 in West Rancho Dominguez.

Perez has filed a wrongful death lawsuit that is pending. The Guardado family won an $8 million dollar settlement with the county.

The commission hired Bonner on a pro bono basis to file a lawsuit against the Sheriff’s Department seeking enforcement. The suit was filed last month.

In January, a new state law took effect that said civilian law enforcement oversight panels were entitled to confidential personnel records.

The law has triggered new meet and confer negotiations between county lawyers, the Sheriff’s Department and the union representing deputies.