The Brief

Just hours after the birth of their second child, Charles Johnson lost his wife Kira at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in west Los Angeles.

Kira Johnson was a healthy 39-year old Black woman. Her C-section took just 17 minutes. But more than 10 hours later, she died after waiting for treatment that came too late for internal bleeding, according to Charles Johnson and a civil rights lawsuit filed in the aftermath.

After his wife's death, Charles Johnson had a painful revelation when he began to learn about the Black maternal mortality crisis and that Black patients are three times more likely to die due to pregnancy-related issues than white patients.

" I couldn't understand why we begged and pleaded for hours for them to do something and nobody did anything," Johnson said.

"When I really got to see the data [I was] like, oh my God, this is what happened," he added. "The greatest risk factor was not Kira's race — it was racism."

That was 2016. But it was just last month that Cedars-Sinai resolved a federal investigation into its treatment of Black patients and other patients of color by coming to an agreement with the Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights.

But some advocates for Black maternal health — including Charles Johnson — say that agreement doesn't go far enough. Later this week, they plan on demonstrating outside of the hospital to say so.

Federal investigation found 'concerns' with Cedars-Sinai care

In November, the HHS Office for Civil Rights sent a letter to the medical center. It raised "concerns that a lower standard of care is provided to Black patients compared to their white counterparts," particularly during and before obstetric hemorrhage, “which results in the risk of higher rates of adverse maternal health outcomes for Black patients.”

That letter, provided to LAist by Charles Johnson, did not include any final determinations. But it did lay out "evidence that may be indicative of noncompliance" with federal anti-discrimination laws.

In January, the federal civil rights agency and Cedars-Sinai came to an agreement that resolves the investigation, while not constituting "an admission of liability" from Cedars-Sinai.

Among other items, it requires the medical center to work with and report to the Office for Civil Rights on its obligations.

What was in the Cedars-Sinai agreement?

The voluntary agreement laid out multiple obligations for Cedars, including:

• Staff training on hemorrhaging management policy.
• Submission of a protocol for assessing and managing acute pain of birthing patients.
• Update of early maternal warning systems for pregnant women developing critical illness.
• Training on federal nondiscrimination requirements.
• Development of a tool for reporting bias in treatment, with findings made public annually.
• Development of a program to support patients' access to doulas.

A spokesperson for Cedars-Sinai said the medical center had offered to meet with Johnson's organization, 4Kira4Moms.

"The recent agreement with the Office of Civil Rights demonstrates our continued commitment to ensuring safe and equitable outcomes through education, accountability and rigorous quality initiatives aimed at addressing disparities in maternal health," the spokesperson said in an email. "We have embraced the opportunity to partner with the Office to strengthen our longstanding dedication to equity for all those who entrust us with their care."

What are other demands?

But 4Kira4Moms says Cedars needs more external monitoring.

 "One of the challenges that we see with medical systems around the country is that they are attempting to police themselves, and it's a fool's errand," Johnson said.

That's why Johnson's group wants the medical center to agree to a series of additional demands, including issuing a statement acknowledging "systemic failures in maternal healthcare," establishing an independent oversight board to investigate racial inequities, and making its Office of Patient Advocacy independent.

" We need an independent review of, particularly, deaths, to make sure that problems are being identified and solutions are being recommended to the hospital that can't be watered down by internal considerations," said Carmen Balber with the advocacy group Consumer Watchdog, which has joined the effort to pressure Cedars-Sinai.

Charles Johnson also said he wants more transparency around how Cedars-Sinai will implement its obligations.

"There's a commitment to a doula program, but that has no parameters of who has access to these doulas," he said. "Who are they for? Who is helping orchestrate them? What credentials do they have?"

The medical center's spokesperson pointed to a number of efforts to address alleged bias in healthcare at Cedars over the past decade, including creating an anonymous online tool to report suspected bias during labor and delivery and implementing mandatory unconscious bias training.

Fate of the HHS Office for Civil Rights uncertain

The Department of Health and Human Services that signed an agreement with Cedars-Sinai last month already looks very different under the new administration of President Donald Trump.

Last week, Robert F. Kennedy was confirmed as Health Secretary and there's a new acting director of the HHS Office for Civil Rights, Anthony Archeval. Trump's administration has ordered the shut down of programs advancing equity, leading some advocates to wonder if the new office will prioritize enforcing the agreement with Cedars-Sinai.

"In addition to holding Cedars-Sinai accountable with this protest, we are also calling on the Trump administration to continue to fund and support the [Office for Civil Rights]," Johnson said.

In Trump's transition to power, the government website reproductiverights.gov went dark. And the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention failed to publish its weekly report on morbidity and mortality for the first time in decades. (Weekly reports have been published again in February.)

" The Office [for] Civil Rights is there specifically to make sure that people are protected,  and have a place to go when they feel like laws related to discrimination are being violated," said Regina Davis Moss, president of In Our Own Voice: National Black Women’s Reproductive Justice Agenda. " We want to see that funded."

The Los Angeles Unified School District is preparing for possible “Super El Niño” storms that could damage schools and lead to closures, the district announced in a media release Tuesday.

District staff are clearing drains, trimming trees and checking roofs, windows and doors. LAUSD is also testing emergency equipment, including pumps and emergency lighting systems, and stocking supplies such as flashlights and drinking water.

“Preparing for severe weather starts well before the first raindrop,” Superintendent Andrés Chait said in a statement. “We can’t control the weather, but we can take steps now to protect our students and employees and help our schools stay ready.”

The district will monitor weather patterns using information from the National Weather Service and local emergency officials, it said.

LAUSD encouraged families to update their contact information to ensure they receive district calls, texts and emails. Families should also monitor weather alerts, follow emergency officials’ instructions, avoid flooded roads and review safe routes to and from school, according to the release.

“Preparing for a storm is a shared effort — from the crews maintaining school buildings to the principals reviewing emergency plans and the families making sure they can receive critical updates,” LAUSD said in the release. “By taking these steps before the rain begins, Los Angeles Unified is working to help students and employees stay safe and keep school communities as prepared as possible for the winter ahead.”

Southern California is likely in for a solid dose of rain this week, just days after heat and Santa Ana winds helped fuel several wildfires across the region.

Forecasters expect the bulk of the rain to roll into the Los Angeles basin Wednesday night and continue into Thursday morning, with a small chance of thunderstorms and hail.

The San Fernando Valley, San Gabriel Valley and coastal areas across L.A. and Orange counties could get around an inch over the next few days. Hills and mountains could get up to 3 inches.

“We could see some pretty high rain rates,” said National Weather Service meteorologist Mike Wofford. “It's a good storm for this time of year — it's a little stronger than what we would see normally.”

The possibility of significant rain in the mountains raises concerns about flooding in areas recently burned in wildfires, particularly around the Bryson Fire burn scar near Malibu, which is only a few days old. Burn scars can’t absorb heavy rainfall and are susceptible to landslides.

The National Weather Service has issued a flood watch for the Santa Monica Mountains and surrounding communities from Wednesday afternoon through Thursday. That means heavy rain there could flood streets, creeks and rivers. The flood watch area includes both the Bryson Fire and Palisades Fire burn scars.

This will also be the first nontropical storm of the season, meaning it’s moving into the region from the north. Most storms that hit Southern California follow a similar path, especially during the winter, unlike the tropical storms that formed off the coast of Mexico and brought muggy weather to the region this summer.

Nontropical storms also bring cold air to the region. On Wednesday and Thursday, forecasters expect highs in the 60s and 70s. High elevations will be even cooler.

The science research institute that would likely receive $4.2 billion in public taxpayer money if voters approve Proposition 38 this November had only three employees as of last month — far fewer than the 51 staffers it planned to have hired by last year.

Public statements and public records CalMatters obtained raise questions about how well prepared the institute is to shepherd so much money if the bond measure passes.

Prop. 38 would allocate up to $8.4 billion in bonds for scientific research on diseases and cures concerning the immune system, with an emphasis on finding treatments for Alzheimer’s, cancer and heart disease. The ballot language stipulates that a single, unnamed research institute would receive half the bond’s money to conduct research and partner with other researchers if it meets highly specific criteria. Bonds are a type of debt that must be repaid.

Previous reporting by CalMatters found only one institute in California currently meets those criteria: the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy. The institute’s principal funder is billionaire Gary K. Michelson, who wrote Prop. 38 and is by far the largest donor to its political campaign.

Backers of the proposition said state bond money is needed to stabilize research funding after President Donald Trump repeatedly attempted to cut existing and future federal science grants.

The measure’s critics say Prop. 38 is well-intentioned but poorly designed because it overlooks the many established public and nonprofit university and hospital research labs in California. They also say California should not subsidize subsets of scientific research and instead should support research more broadly.

CalMatters obtained documents that included the five-year business plan of the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy. The plan was part of the formal affiliation agreement between UCLA and the institute, which the two parties signed in August 2024. Among other details, the agreement requires the institute to pay UCLA 7.5% of the net revenue of any drugs and technologies developed by the institute’s staff. The institute is one of the founding tenants at a UCLA-owned research park in West Los Angeles, where the institute is leasing 235,000 square feet of research space, the institute says.

Far fewer employees than plan called for

Between summer 2024 and summer 2025, the institute committed to hiring “approximately” 51 employees, including six executives, five “world-class” scientists who can lead research labs, and 40 other employees, such as data scientists, lab technicians, biologists and administrative personnel. Between 2025 and 2027, the institute would hire roughly 90 more workers, including 10 research lab leaders, according to the agreement.

But John Mazziotta, a senior UCLA official who also serves as a board member of the immunology institute, last month said the institute has hired just three employees: a chief operating officer, a general counsel, and a scientific advisor, and “they're well into the search” for a director. Mazziotta, the CEO of UCLA Health and vice chancellor for health sciences at UCLA, made his comments during the Sept. 16 UC Regents meeting.

The Yes on Prop. 38 campaign has repeatedly refused to comment on whether the bond was written specifically for the immunology institute. Claudia Briggs, a spokesperson for the campaign, told CalMatters in July that whichever nonprofit receives the $4.2 billion portion of the bond fund should be a sophisticated one that “is prepared to accelerate lifesaving research immediately while maintaining the highest standards of scientific quality, accountability, and stewardship of public funds.”

At a September press conference, a Yes on Prop. 38 spokesperson appeared to confirm CalMatters’ findings that only one institute currently qualifies to be the one to receive half the bond money. “It is very likely that CIII, which is a research institute affiliated with UCLA, will qualify for half of the funds under the current criteria,” said Robin Swanson. CIII is the initialism for the immunology institute.

According to the five-year plan, the institute was supposed to spend $25 million on personnel between 2024-25 and 2025-26 and $45 million total on operating expenses in that time, including maintenance, utilities and rent. It was also supposed to spend an additional $167 million in that time on capital expenses, such as construction and demolition. However, Mazziotta told UC regents that the institute had so far spent a total of $20 million on “operating expenses, hires” and other expenses.

The Yes on 38 campaign refused CalMatters’ request to interview Michelson for this story, as did Michelson himself in a separate email. A spokesperson for the institute, Becky Warren, sent a written statement that didn't answer CalMatters' questions about employing far fewer people than the five-year plan laid out. Instead, she highlighted the promise of the institute and a few of its milestones, including signing the affiliation agreement with UCLA and clearing a state environmental review of its forthcoming research facility.

The institute won’t get state bond money if it isn’t ready to begin work, “plain and simple,” wrote Swanson, the Yes on 38 spokesperson, in an email. She stressed that though the institute very likely qualifies, the ultimate decision to award half the bond funding is up to the California Department of Public Health.

Institute facility will be built by 2028

The UCLA research park that houses the institute isn’t slated to be fully built until at least late 2028, according to the agenda item of the September UC regents meeting. The research park is a former mall UCLA acquired in late 2023 that’s now undergoing major retrofitting.

But the 2024 affiliation agreement between UCLA and the institute anticipated this. The agreement permitted the institute to use UCLA health research space on another campus property on an interim basis. Mazziotta told regents that research is underway there.

Mazziotta also told the regents the institute's construction costs are not fully funded — it still needs roughly $100 million. He said UCLA was in serious talks with a donor to provide about $50 million to the institute.

If Prop. 38 passes, the bond funding would be provided in increments based on how often the institute requests new money that senior state officials approve. If all the funds are depleted, Californians would repay the bond at a rate of $500 million to $600 million annually for about 20 years.

Institute would be exempt from public records act

CalMatters submitted the public records request to UCLA, which must comply with the California Public Records Act. The institute, as a private nonprofit, does not have to comply. And while Prop. 38 would channel billions of dollars in taxpayer money to the institute, the proposition’s language specifically exempts the nonprofit that will receive the $4.2 billion from state public meetings laws, political reform laws and the public records act. The other half of the funds would go to a council that’ll pick projects led by researchers from a limited pool of universities and nonprofits. The council would generally be governed by the state’s political reform act, which prohibits financial self-dealing.

Briggs defended the institute’s exemption in Prop. 38, writing that applying state transparency laws to existing private organizations would “not fit well with how private entities are organized and operate.” Instead, she noted the selected nonprofit institute would be required to publish annual reports on its research progress and financial plans plus commit to annual state audits, among other disclosures written into the ballot measure.

Still unclear to the UC regents is the relationship between UCLA and the institute on matters of public disclosure. Four senior UCLA officials sit on the institute’s board. So is a document held by those UCLA officials public because it’s related to UCLA affairs or private because it’s related to the institute’s affairs? UC’s general counsel couldn’t explain where that dividing line is after a regent member asked him. The regent member, Michael Cohen, said he wants more clarity when the regents meet again in November.

Gov. Gavin Newsom and the California Democratic Party endorsed Prop. 38, as have dozens of patient and research advocacy groups, plus the state GOP. The union of graduate students and post-doctoral researchers, whose pay often relies on science research funding, has also endorsed the proposition. The union doesn’t represent faculty.

Money raised in support of Prop. 38 now exceeds $66 million, including at least $61.2 million in contributions from Michelson and his policy institute. Roughly $14 million of that includes loans from Michelson. The no camp has raised about $8,800

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