The Brief

In March 2024, when the K-pop girl group NewJeans was awarded group of the year at Billboard's Women in Music event, the crew was presented the honor by the unlikeliest of advocates: country star Lainey Wilson, who hinted at the distance between their respective worlds and this rare opportunity to bridge them. "It's a place where a gal who grew up in a small farming community in Louisiana gets to shine a light on an incredible group of K-pop performers from halfway across the globe," she said, applause roaring out before the group's name was even spoken. Indeed, the prized pony of ADOR, a sub-label of the juggernaut K-pop company HYBE, had spent the previous year affirming itself as an exciting next step in the genre's evolution. Billboard felt like the perfect American institution to recognize this leap: The 2023 EP Get Up had made NewJeans only the second K-pop girl group to top the Billboard 200, after Blackpink. But as the group performed "Super Shy" and "ETA," Get Up's hits, the distance between the two units couldn't have been more apparent. Blackpink was the final benchmark of an old K-pop model; NewJeans was a brand new one.

For one thing, there was a profound understatement to the NewJeans performance — members gliding in and out of the lead spot with uncanny precision, distinct from the flamboyant mini-showcases that had come before. The sparkling fits, flowy choreo and muted music were impressive on their own, but the rush was in how seamlessly they worked together, telling a story about style. Where many K-pop groups spend their press runs trying to be all things to all listeners, NewJeans had spent its breakout year building an aesthetic niche to live in. Where some K-pop singles are so obsessed with now-ness that they feel out of time the moment they're born, NewJeans' songs seemed to be angling for something timeless. For a moment, it looked as if the group could be K-pop's future — if not a bellwether then at least a new barometer, and a message to the industry to reconsider how it does business. Yet only a month after the Billboard ceremony, that horizon became clouded in uncertainty: A power struggle erupted within HYBE for control of NewJeans' future, benching the group for over a year and dividing its fanbase. A surprise announcement this month promises that NewJeans will be back, but the long absence leading to this unsteady return has felt, to those paying attention to the genre's scandals over the years, like the latest evidence of a lingering rot.

Even many superfans will tell you that K-pop's pageantry has often masked a troubled business model, where impressionable young trainees commit to a life run entirely by their agencies. Signing on the dotted line can come with extraordinary expectations: plastic surgery, disordered eating, heavy restrictions on socializing. South Korea's Fair Trade Commission finally capped K-pop contracts at seven years after a 2009 controversy around the boy band TVXQ, who coined the term "slave contract" to describe its own 13-year agreement. K-pop was also at ground zero for the rise of toxic stan culture, from the doxxing of journalists to the cyberbullying of artists; one such star, Sulli of the girl group f(x), died by suicide in the midst of unrelenting harassment. Concerns over these practices have been a public talking point for years, but reform efforts rarely stick: In 2019, Yang Hyun-suk, co-founder of YG Entertainment, was forced to step down from the label after threatening a whistleblower to cover up a drug allegation facing one of his artists; he has since returned to YG and is helming the girl group Babymonster.

The industry famous for its finely honed artist development method, sometimes called the "K-pop formula," has always lived with this tension: a creative philosophy with proven results, and a near-constant struggle for fairer relations between performers and the adults who oversee them. The latest and most public installment in this fight began last spring, with an outlier act suddenly at the center of the story.

In April 2024, NewJeans found itself caught in a quarrel between two corporate masters. On one side stood the top brass at HYBE, the largest of the country's "big four" entertainment agencies since it went public in 2020. On the other was one of their deputies: Min Hee-jin, CEO and founder of ADOR, who had launched NewJeans in 2022 and served as a creative director for its music. An industry veteran by the time she joined HYBE in 2019, Min had arrived touting progressive ideas for managing talent, already positioning her next group as an alternative to K-pop's star system. HYBE had given her the keys, but now alleged that an internal audit revealed she sought to seize total control of ADOR — and took steps to fire her. Min denied such a thing was possible, and claimed the falling-out actually stemmed from her complaints that the company had sidelined NewJeans, stifling its growth in favor of other girl groups it was launching. That August, ADOR announced Min had stepped down as CEO, while the producer insisted she had been forced out.

When asked, in an interview with the English-language newspaper Korea JoongAng Daily, why she and NewJeans were so committed to working together, Min attributed the closeness to her unique style of artist development, saying:

Throughout the ordeal, the five members of NewJeans — Minji (now 21), Hanni (21), Danielle (20), Haerin (19) and Hyein (17) — publicly supported Min and called for her reinstatement, saying they would not continue without her. HYBE suggested a compromise: Min could stay on, but in a limited role as a music producer, an offer Min quickly denounced as a mockery of her mission. "It is contradictory to accuse me of breach of trust while offering me a producer role. I chose to join because HYBE claimed they wanted to create a new wave and flow in K-pop. If those aspects hadn't been guaranteed, I wouldn't have even joined the company," she said in an interview with Japan's TV Asahi/ANN News program News Station. The only tenable way forward, she argued, was for her to continue as CEO, managing business and production in tandem.

By then, the issue had grown bigger than Min, with the NewJeans girls voicing their own criticisms of the parent company. Last September, in an impromptu YouTube livestream that played like a hostage video, the members called HYBE inhumane, detailing mistreatment and harassment. A month later, Hanni testified, through tears, before the South Korean National Assembly's Environment and Labor Committee, as a reference witness for an audit being conducted around workplace harassment and artist protection in the entertainment industry. She spoke about discrimination she and her groupmates faced at HYBE, and the resulting distrust. The case was ultimately dismissed, with the committee ruling that members of K-pop groups are not workers, and therefore are not entitled to labor protections.

Finally, on Nov. 28, 2024, NewJeans took matters into its own hands. At a press conference, the members announced the termination of their exclusive contract with ADOR, and vowed to seek the right to continue independently under the NewJeans name. The industry moved swiftly against them, with the Korea Management Federation and Korea Entertainment Producers' Association both siding with the company, the latter calling the act childish. Attempts to freelance under a new name, NJZ, were quickly thwarted. The group performed for the last time in February 2025, headlining at ComplexCon Hong Kong.

It took a year of legal limbo, with the group's musical activities stopped cold, before a pair of decisions put an end to the suspense. On Oct. 30, 2025, Seoul Central District Court ruled in favor of ADOR, saying that NewJeans must honor its contract and stay with the label through 2029. The members initially stuck to their guns, saying in a statement, "It is impossible to return to ADOR and continue normal entertainment activities under the current situation where the trust relationship with ADOR has completely broken down." They vowed to appeal the ruling, a case legal experts estimated would not be heard until well into 2026. Then came a twist that few saw coming: On Nov. 12, ADOR announced in a press release that the group's two youngest members, Hyein and Haerin, would be returning to the label, with no word on Minji, Danielle and Hanni. A few hours later, the three holdouts announced their intention to return as well — but through a news article, saying they had contacted ADOR but had not yet heard back. The label's response was a reluctant one: "We are confirming the authenticity of their intentions."

That abrupt, staggered homecoming may be the perfect distillation of the conflicting ideologies that have swirled around the group from all sides. Local reports claimed that Hyein's father — who had so strongly opposed their leaving the label that he entered a civil dispute with his wife over legal guardianship, citing a need for an "environment where Hyein could focus on her career" — was instrumental in bringing the younger girls back to ADOR. In contrast, The Korea Herald reported that Minji's mother had been a vocal supporter of Min and her position in the fight with HYBE. Meanwhile, Min herelf had moved on, announcing the start of her own indie agency just ahead of the court verdict. But she did release a statement giving her blessing for the group's return to ADOR, with the parting wish that they remain united. "I can begin anew anywhere. But I believe that NewJeans must remain whole as five," Min said. "I hope the members grow stronger and become an even better NewJeans, and above all, I wish happiness for all five members."

The end of Min's label experiment points to something bigger at play, a tug-of-war that has long felt inescapable within K-pop. During the peak of the dispute, HYBE and the courts asserted there would be no disruption to the NewJeans operation under the proposed changes. But Min had intentionally designed ADOR, a boutique imprint with NewJeans as its only artist, to run counter to the HYBE system, binding artists' and producers' fates together in ways frankly radical for the genre. "I wanted to have all of these come together," Min told Fast Company, describing the balance of art and commerce that made up her fantasy K-pop outfit. "My definition of cool music, with my definition of a cool picture, with my definition of a great business. Business is, of course, important because if you don't make money with art, it would be kind of useless."

Before launching ADOR, Min was one of the defining figures in K-pop aesthetics. As the creative director at SM Entertainment, she styled and designed concepts for Girls' Generation, SHINee, EXO, f(x) and Red Velvet, becoming the highest-paid woman in the industry in the process. "I accomplished a lot of things when I was at SM, and I left because I was not really satisfied with my life there," she told Fast Company. "But I'm not saying that I came here because I love this company; I needed a place where I could actualize my vision." The ADOR way — which is to say, the NewJeans blueprint — was to defy what Min called "conventional K-pop idol grammar" and create a group for non-fanatics: a smooth, iterative sound that never resolves, snappy enough to generate earworms yet compact enough to not overstay its welcome.

"For most K-pop songs, there's always an intro and then the climax and the tension relieves again, because people think that having loops is boring," Min said in that interview. She was specifically referencing NewJeans' club-pop confection "Super Shy," which artfully defies this climax-release principle by converting liquid drum and bass into blissful Powerpuff pizzazz. The song was co-written and -arranged by the Danish singer-songwriter Erika de Casier, and is imbued with her soft-focused, nostalgic take on Y2K-era R&B. In it, you can hear the NewJeans model at full bore: loopy, sugar-rush songcraft accented by airbrushed vocals. But most important is its holism: It is streamlined, even graceful, where many other K-pop recordings feel like Megazord constructions of the myriad artists who work on them. (EXO-K's "History," for example, has two different bridges, one of which feels beamed in from a completely different song.)

The fragmented approach can be its own kind of endearing, but stitching together bits of tracks was not Min's way. "There is a reason why we have composers make the songs! Sometimes, we'll adjust the top line, but we never go as far as to damage the real intention of the song," she said. Min's production MO was pointed defiantly away from the tried and true way of doing things, which took some collaborators by surprise. "One of the first questions they asked me was, 'Do you listen a lot to K-pop?' " de Casier told GQ in 2023. "And I got so nervous and I had to be honest and said, 'No, I haven't yet explored that genre.' And they're like, 'Good, because we want something new. We want something fresh.' "

K-pop can often sound oddly anachronistic, even when aiming at an explicitly retro sound, but NewJeans spun a mirage of the past into a modern teenage dream. The touchstones weren't unique ('90s streetwear, early aughts American prep, teen dramas), nor were the genres at play (new jack swing, synth-pop, Jersey and Baltimore club, Miami bass, throwback R&B); it was the ways in which they were remixed, the sense of curation and harmony at work and the way it all slotted neatly into a TikTok-induced optimization. A lot has been made of NewJeans' minimalism as a refreshing counter to K-pop maximalism, but the real innovation was its sepia-toned feel: K-pop as a moodboard come alive, revitalizing the old to the point of a full revolution. Some portion of that has to be attributed to the impresario-auteur at the reins and her master plan. "These days people use the word producer kind of interchangeably as a composer. I'm a producer, but I don't make songs," Min said. "I plan strategies."

It is only through such acumen that you get the synergy of a dot-com-era obsessive like de Casier calibrating the group's filter for maximum effect. She is far from the first inspired pairing of choice Westerner and ascendant K-pop group — the late SOPHIE produced for ITZY; Carly Rae Jepsen co-wrote an f(x) song; Troye Sivan and Charli XCX worked on music for the giants BTS and TWICE, respectively — but in many of those songs you can often feel the discord of trying to force those artists to adapt to the agencies' market-tested structure. So much of the NewJeans synthesis came from those brought onto the creative team having no clue how K-pop usually works. "It's hard [for me] to say how their music differs from other K‑pop songs — I think it's better for music critics to comment on that," Ylva Dimberg, one of the group's recurring writers and producers, told The Face. The primary NewJeans producer, 250, put forth a theory of K-pop music that seemed to align with the group's mandate: He asked a Swedish friend who headed a K-pop songwriting team what K-pop was, because he didn't really know, and the friend said it could be anything. "People talk about 'the formula of K-pop.' But I don't really understand that, because K-pop is really just pop music made by Koreans," he told Nylon. "So whatever we do, we don't need to follow any specific rules because no one can tell us something we made isn't K-pop."

Not following rules seems to be precisely the strategy Min envisioned. To 250's point, the idea of a genre as omnivorous as K-pop having a central sound is ridiculous, but a unique song framework can still stand out. Most NewJeans songs don't have bridges; none have obligatory rap verses. All feel like they have been stripped to their essential parts, stringing hooks together like embroidery floss along a friendship bracelet, and all have a perfect grasp on the balance between Western and Eastern pop sensibilities. Much of that equilibrium seems to begin with the sessions themselves and the collaborators put in the room: a marriage between outsiders from the Korean industry and niche Scandinavian artists, adding up to an unfussy fusionist's phantasmagoria.

It should be said: While ADOR's anti-system stance paid off handsomely as a creative ethic, it proved less effective in remaking the industry at the administrative level. Min was never a K-pop socialist — revolutionary by industry standards, certainly, but still longed to be a CEO fronting a business — and in time she inevitably found herself playing by the house rules, subject to the same industry politicking as other K-pop executives. (Among the evidence cited in October's court ruling were unearthed Slack messages from Min ordering subordinates to dig up dirt on other HYBE artists, which the court saw as grounds to declare breach of trust, misuse of personal information, infringement of trade secrets, defamation and abuse of power.) No one person could overhaul the entire enterprise, but Min's undoing feels like an especially revealing lesson in the limits of the master's tools.

K-pop is a copycat league. Not just in the musical sense — as when Girls' Generation ripped Duffy's "Mercy" for its own "Dancing Queen," or when myriad K-pop groups followed the success of "Despacito" down the reggaeton rabbit hole — but also in its efforts to recreate the tactics of anything that brings in audiences (hence "the K-pop formula," which is about replicating the paces of idol assembly down to the members' roles). The space vacated by NewJeans has been tough to fill, but that doesn't mean there haven't been one-off attempts to take a few laps in its lane. In Illit, a HYBE sister group whom Min accused of ripping off NewJeans wholesale, you can hear the same collage-like principle on songs like "Magnetic" and "jellyous." Olivia Marsh, the literal sister of NewJeans' Danielle, tunes her "Strategy" to a similar turn-of-the-millenium frequency. Several songs, from ifeye's "IRL" and HITGS' "SOURPATCH" to VIVIZ's "Full Moon" and izna's "BEEP," have tried to recreate the bubblegum bass vibe of skipping rhythms and lush, light vocals; even TWICE got in on the fun last year. Others, like Hearts2Hearts' "Blue Moon" and RESCENE's "Deja Vu," conjure the dreamy, rosy-eyed R&B-lite. All of these attempts are serviceable; many are even pleasant. But none quite recreate the mojo.

The contrast is, at least partly, in the roadmap. Min made an organizational practice of stockpiling good, complete songs and figuring out what to do with them later, whereas the traditional K-pop process involves building an elaborate concept around a plug-and-play single and treating it as a peg for months of extended rollout activities. NewJeans didn't do isolated campaigns or tossed-off B-sides; everything served the broader group architecture, something not to be taken for granted in K-pop's LARPing ecosystem, where artists transform between promo cycles. (Just look at the jarring transition from LE SSERAFIM's posed, subtle, disco-inflected "Hot" to the campy, lurid, rap-forward "Spaghetti.") Min once said that the music itself was the concept with NewJeans, and simple as that seems, it's a key part of the group's appeal: There was an identifiable and qualifiable NewJeans sound, one that was singular and exclusive. It was clear what a New Jeans song was, and — just as crucially — what it wasn't, to the point of feeling intuitive. The group did all of the things inherent to K-pop groups, but it did so with a sense of taste top of mind.

The worst K-pop can feel like bad product placement: odious in its lack of subtlety, putting the commerce front and center and pretending otherwise, treating its "idols" like collectible dolls to generate shareholder value. It would be disingenuous to suggest that NewJeans was in any way immune to the genre's hazards of investment opportunity or marketing front — the video for "ETA" is an ad for the iPhone 14 Pro — but the group's promotion was far less gauche; it was purposeful, even, and shrewd in its movements. It was the influencer ideal: the mere presence doing much of the selling, of a vibe more than a commodity. There was a naturalness, at odds with the usual K-pop posturing, and the styling and choreography were in complete alignment with the music, which was clearly the main attraction. That is, perhaps, why this battle feels particularly distressing in an industry that is no stranger to scandal and corporate malpractice. It is disorienting for K-pop's most actualized act to become the face of its dysfunction.

It's impossible to say whether this is the beginning of the end for NewJeans. Perhaps, years from now, Min Hee-jin's dismissal will feel like the official death knell — or maybe it will be a blip in an otherwise successful career at ADOR. But it's also tempting to think of the what-ifs — the artistic and workplace breakthroughs that could have been made at the key turning points of this saga. What might the NewJeans arc have been had it continued uninterrupted, and could it have ushered in a new K-pop paradigm, or at least an alternative to the norm? What might the business look like had the Environment and Labor Committee heard Hanni's testimony as an elegy, a plea to bury the old ways? Min once mused, "It can be scary to suggest something different. But once the suggestion is accepted, I think that's what writes new history." Before us now is the other side of that coin: the suggestion rejected, the door closed on renewal, and a group once defined by its counterculture ethos headed back to the assembly line, to resume performing as though nothing has changed. K-pop is reliant on a blissful suspension of disbelief, the stage as a whimsical little pocket world — but it's hard to imagine the many layers of strained relationships here won't taint the NewJeans fantasy in ways that cannot be ignored.

In a recent interview with the Associated Press, SM Entertainment founder Lee Soo-man — Min's former boss and a key player in K-pop's global expansion — was asked his thoughts on the genre's darker controversies, from which his own company had scarcely been immune. (Recall TVXQ's "slave contract" controversy and Sulli's suicide — both SM artists.) Lee responded with another question: "Should we always weigh the dark side equally with the bright side, the future?" he asked. "Media should consider whether K-pop represents more future or more past that holds us back. Rather than just discussing the dark side and dragging us down by clinging to the past, shouldn't we talk more about the future?" I've been thinking about that a lot since I read it. It's a question premised on the idea that the past and future are partitioned from each other, and that the darkness is all in the rearview mirror. Yet if the NewJeans gauntlet is any indication, those tribulations are still far closer to us than they appear.

Kevin Warsh, President Donald Trump's nominee to serve as the next chair of the Federal Reserve, may face a tough fight for confirmation — partly over events for which he has no control.

The Senate Banking Committee holds a confirmation hearing for Warsh on Tuesday — but already one GOP senator has said he will block a vote on the nominee until the Department of Justice drops an investigation into the Fed.

Warsh will also likely face questions about inflation and borrowing costs and whether he can maintain his independence as Trump makes it clear he expects his next Fed chair to lead the charge to lower interest rates.

Here are three things to know as the confirmation process begins.

Most of the drama has nothing to do with Warsh himself

A key member of the banking committee, Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., has promised to hold up confirmation of the nominee, but not because of any objection to Warsh himself.

Tillis wants the Justice Department to drop its criminal investigation of the central bank and its current chairman, Jerome Powell. That probe is ostensibly about cost overruns on the Fed's headquarters renovation project. But Powell says it's really part of a pressure campaign by the Trump administration to get the Fed to lower interest rates, and a federal judge agreed, blasting the investigation as an unjustified act of intimidation.

The DOJ has promised to appeal the judge's decision. By dropping its probe, the administration could win Tillis' vote and clear the way for Warsh's confirmation. But that hasn't happened yet.

Warsh has argued for lower interest rates, but it may not be so easy

Kevin Warsh previously served on the Fed's board of governors and had a reputation as "hawkish," meaning he was cautious about cutting interest rates for fear inflation might get out of control.

But recently, he's argued that productivity gains from artificial intelligence could allow the central bank to lower interest rates while still keeping prices in check.

Critics like Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the ranking Democrat on the banking committee, see that flip-flop as a sign that Warsh will take direction on rates from President Trump, even though the Fed is supposed to operate free from political pressure.

"Warsh has really gone out of his way to demonstrate that he will be the sock puppet in chief," Warren told NPR.

While past presidents have given the Fed wide latitude, at least publicly, in setting interest rates, Trump has been outspoken in demanding lower rates, raising concern that he could jeopardize the Fed's independence.

Even if Warsh wants to lower interest rates, he may not be able to. Interest rates are set by a 12-member committee at the Fed, and many committee members are reluctant to cut rates until inflation is closer to the central bank's 2% target. The war with Iran and the resulting spike in gasoline prices have made that a more challenging goal.

Warsh has also called for other changes at the central bank

If confirmed, Warsh could also seek to narrow the Fed's footprint in the economy. Warsh has criticized the Fed for straying beyond its statutory role of promoting stable prices and maximum employment. He's argued that the central bank should play a smaller role and that Fed leaders should talk less and stay in their lane.

While he agrees that political leaders should keep hands off the Fed in setting interest rates, he argues the Fed should be equally cautious about stepping into muddy political waters around climate change or inclusion.
Copyright 2026 NPR

Auditors are flagging major problems with the handling of tax dollars by the L.A. Homeless Services Authority.

The failures surround poor bookkeeping and accounting of taxpayer money at the agency — which spent over $800 million in public funds last fiscal year. The issues emerged despite previous audits flagging serious oversight problems in prior years. The latest audit was conducted by an outside firm hired by the agency to meet federal requirements.

The agency’s financial statements initially included “significant” inaccurate amounts that needed to be adjusted late in the audit process, auditors found in their review of LAHSA’s last fiscal year that ended in June 2025.

The findings are from the federally-required “single audit,” a draft of which was presented to LAHSA’s audit committee on Monday. It found the inaccuracies stemmed from a "significant deficiency” in LAHSA’s “internal controls,” which are supposed to safeguard against financial inaccuracies and fraud.

The accounting failures contributed to delays in completing the audit — which was due to the federal government on March 31 — according to the draft report. Missing that deadline can put future federal funding at risk. LAHSA officials said at the committee meeting that they hope to submit the final audit report this coming Friday, more than three weeks after the deadline.

At a public meeting Monday, LAHSA CEO Gita O’Neill told LAHSA’s audit committee that her team was working to implement many of the auditors’ recommendations, which she called “great suggestions.”

The draft audit report now goes to the LAHSA Commission for approval on Friday. The audit committee was asked to approve it Monday but didn’t have majority support to move forward.

L.A. Mayor Karen Bass, who oversees the agency and is the only elected official on LAHSA’s governing commission, did not respond to a request for comment through a spokesperson.

The backstory

In response to previous audits that found major problems with LAHSA’s oversight of tax dollars, county supervisors decided last spring to withdraw all of the county’s $300 million-plus in annual funding of services through LAHSA and instead have the county directly manage it starting on July 1.

Problems identified in the latest audit reiterate why the county pulled its funding, Supervisor Kathryn Barger said in a statement Monday.

“LAHSA’s inaction and inability to meet its audit deadline is inexcusable,” Barger said.

In a statement, Supervisor Lindsey Horvath said the “significant financial problems” found in the audit give “further confirmation” why the county decided to shift its funds out of LAHSA.

“Accountability isn’t optional; it is required to end this emergency. Anything less is unacceptable,” Horvath said.

The city is considering moving in a similar direction as the county. A key City Council panel — its homelessness committee — recently recommended the full council start shifting city homelessness funding out of LAHSA over the course of the next fiscal year. Bass has urged caution, saying moving too quickly to shift funding could disrupt services for unhoused people.

LAHSA has long functioned as the L.A.’s homeless services department, with over $300 million in city money expected to flow through LAHSA this fiscal year.

As of last summer, LAHSA had $380.5 million in assets and $381 million in liabilities, and received a total of $810 million in operating revenues during the last fiscal year, according to the latest audit.

Other problems identified by auditors

During Monday’s discussion, lead auditor Justin Measley said LAHSA did not disclose millions of dollars in payments to a service provider whose executive was married to LAHSA’s CEO at the time, Va Lecia Adams Kellum. The audit is required to list “related party” transactions, Measley said, which involve an organization with immediate family ties to LAHSA’s leadership. He said auditors only learned about it later through reviewing news media coverage.

“The article is what triggered us knowing about this specifically,” said Measley, who works for the auditing firm CliftonLarsonAllen.

LAist uncovered documents showing Adams Kellum’s signature was on a $2.1 million contract and two other contract amendments with Upward Bound House, the Santa Monica-based nonprofit where her husband Edward Kellum works in senior leadership. The contract named Adams Kellum as the LAHSA official authorized to administer it.

Va Lecia Adams Kellum, former CEO of the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, at a news briefing at L.A. City Hall in June 2023.

(

Gary Coronado

/

Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

)

A LAHSA-commissioned investigation cleared Adams Kellum of wrongdoing in part because “her signature was unintentionally applied by her staff, not by herself,” according to a summary released by LAHSA. LAHSA spokesperson Paul Rubenstein previously told LAist that Adams Kellum herself “mistakenly signed” the agreements. LAHSA officials also previously distributed an email from Adams Kellum’s official account to a colleague about one of the contracts with her husband’s employer, which stated “Please delete the document that I signed accidentally.”

Last year, state investigators at the Fair Political Practices Commission launched a conflict of interest investigation into the matter, which is ongoing.

Monday’s audit committee meeting also included discussion of the auditors’ findings that LAHSA is locked into paying $75 million for long-term leases over the coming years that cannot be canceled. Those leases are largely through its master leasing program that started over the last couple of years, which leases 14 apartment buildings, totaling 772 units, to provide housing for unhoused people. LAHSA management says the master leasing program is currently significantly underwater financially.

A presentation last week by LAHSA management said the master leases are causing an annual budget hit of $10 million to LAHSA, which is prompting the agency to pull from other grants to pay for the leases.

LAHSA’s lease accounting was at the center of a "significant” correction to the agency’s financial statements late in the audit process, the audit states in its findings.

The auditors also found that LAHSA failed to comply with requirements for payroll costs that it charged to the federal government. The agency’s management failed to ensure timesheets for its employees were approved for three of the 40 timesheets the auditors reviewed, despite the law requiring federally-funded salaries to be based on accurate records of work, auditors found.

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass on Monday unveiled a $14.9 billion budget that is significantly rosier than last year’s spending plan, when she suggested massive layoffs and service cuts to accommodate a billion-dollar deficit.

This year, because of a projected increase in revenues, the mayor is proposing no layoffs and a modest expansion of street services. Bass' budget also calls for hiring police officers to keep up with retirements and resignations, maintaining Fire Department spending and holding steady funding for homelessness programs.

“This budget is about protecting the progress we have made and making clear that Los Angeles is moving forward and will not go backward,” Bass said at a news conference.

In the proposal, the reserve fund is 5.7% of the general fund, or $490 million. The budget does not dip into the reserves, in contrast to last year’s plan.

Bass is seeking re-election this year. The primary is June 2.

Some of her challengers in the upcoming election, including Councilmember Nithya Raman, criticized Bass’ proposal as doing little more than maintaining the status quo.

“The budget the Mayor released today tells us the plan is to largely keep doing what we're doing — but what we're doing is not working,” Raman said in a statement.

Next, the proposal will go to the City Council for consideration. Budget hearings will be conducted in the coming weeks.

Increasing revenue

Among the reasons city officials say revenue will go up is the expected influx of thousands of visitors to World Cup soccer matches this summer. More travelers mean more people staying in hotels and paying hotel taxes, as well as more sales tax revenue.

The budget projects a $412 million increase in general tax revenue, including $71 in business taxes, $34 million in sales taxes and $67 million in utility taxes.

The budget would add 170 new positions in the department that handles street repairs and increase funding for street and sidewalk fixes, curb-ramp installation, street sweeping, bulky item pickup and dedicated illegal dumping enforcement throughout the city.

The budget also proposes hiring 510 police officers, representing a target of 8,555 for the Police Department and enough to keep up with attrition, according to budget officials. Bass has set a goal of 9,500 officers.

“It’s about preventing the shrinkage of LAPD,” Bass said.

That proposal is likely to see opposition from some council members who want to see the department shrink and funding for unarmed response teams increase.

Inside Safe

The budget sustains citywide coverage for civilian unarmed crisis response, maintaining deployment of 500 crossing guards and expanding a program that aims to help children get to and from school safely and protect them from gang violence.

Under the budget, funding for Inside Safe, the mayor’s signature program to address homelessness, would remain about the same — $104 million.

The mayor touts an 18% drop in street homelessness as evidence of its success.

The budget maintains funding for the city Fire Department. In November, voters are expected to decide whether to increase the sales tax by half a percent to pay for more firefighters and equipment.

Criticism for the budget

Bass’ challengers immediately criticized her budget as lacking vision.

“This budget maintains a status quo of reduced services and higher fees, the direct result of fiscally irresponsible decisions made by this Mayor in prior years,” Raman said in her statement.

In January, the council member voted against Bass’ plan to hire 170 more police officers.

Adam Miller, a tech entrepreneur and another Bass challenger, said keeping the budget flat “implies that the status quo is working.”

“That is tone-deaf to the city of Los Angeles as Angelenos overwhelmingly feel we need change," he said.

The budget needs to be approved by the City Council and signed by the mayor by July 1, the start of the fiscal year.