The Brief

L.A. County’s secretive $2 million payout to its CEO two months ago — first revealed by LAist this week — was to settle her claims that she was harmed by a ballot measure that will change her job to an elected position and by the county’s messaging.

CEO Fesia Davenport had requested the settlement for what she claimed was “reputational harm, embarrassment and physical, emotional and mental distress caused by the Measure G.”

Measure G will transform the CEO job from an appointed position into an elected one starting in 2028. Voters approved it last year after most of the county Board of Supervisors placed it on the ballot.

In letters laying out her claims, Davenport said that while the measure made the case for structural changes, its text impugned her reputation by saying “the lack of strong, elected executive leadership has impacted our ability to address these challenges.”

“It conflates desired structural changes with the desired attributes of the [elected CEO] and by implication the undesirable attributes of the current CEO,” Davenport wrote. The text was put on the ballot by Davenport’s bosses on the county Board of Supervisors.

She also wrote that she deserved compensation from her career as the at-will CEO being cut short by the shift to elected CEO in late 2028, which she said also would lessen how much retirement she’d earn.

Measure G “ends my career as CEO at least two years earlier than I intend,” Davenport wrote.

The changes to the CEO position will happen after Davenport’s employment contract was set to end, based on the timing described in her letters. She requested that her contract be extended through December 2028, the same month the CEO position switches to being elected.

The letters show Davenport’s opening request was for $2 million, which is what a majority of county supervisors ultimately agreed to pay her.

By receiving the payment in one lump sum, Davenport wrote she would be able “to earn interest on the funds to help mitigate the lifelong impact of Measure G on my retirement allowance.”

She wrote that her request was “not so beyond the pale to be unreasonable,” pointing to other payouts to several other county executives — including a $1.5 million settlement payment to her predecessor as CEO.

Davenport laid out her claims in letters starting in August 2024. The county released two of the letters on Tuesday evening to LAist and the L.A. Times, after LAist cited a state law since last week requiring the county to disclose them “upon request without delay."

[Click here to read the claim letters disclosed by the county.]

County Supervisor Janice Hahn says she never disparaged Davenport.

“In the years I worked to expand the board and create an elected county executive, I never disparaged our current CEO in any way,” Hahn said in a statement. “This was a measure about accountability, an outdated county structure and giving voters the power to elect someone to an entirely new position — the county executive. I always envisioned the CEO team working alongside the new elected county executive.”

Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, one of the main drivers of Measure G, said she reluctantly voted in favor of the settlement.

“I was presented with two bad options: settle a claim I disagreed with, or risk a protracted court battle,” Horvath said in an emailed statement to LAist. “Either choice meant spending precious taxpayer dollars, but settling resolved the matter quickly.”

Horvath added that she was not fully satisfied with the settlement “because it did not include some contractual terms that might help to further mitigate future risk.”

“Measure G was never about any one individual; it’s about reforming a broken system and returning power to the people,” Horvath said.

The pro-Measure G campaign issued a statement Wednesday condemning the settlement deal.

“Los Angeles County residents should be outraged,” said the statement, provided by Morgan Miller of Yes on Measure G. “After years of the county telling its workers and the public that there was no money for fair pay, cost-of-living increases or essential services, County CEO Fesia Davenport has demanded — and received — $2 million in taxpayer funds as part of a ‘settlement’ simply because of ‘embarrassment and … distress caused by … Measure G.’ ”

“This is a blatant misuse of public money and a clear demonstration of why Measure G was necessary in the first place,” she added.

Davenport did not respond to a request for comment for this article.

County supervisors unanimously approved the settlement July 29, with Davenport and county executives giving final sign off in mid-August. But it was not reported publicly until LAist obtained a copy of the settlement and published it this week. The taxpayer-funded deal was also labeled as ‘confidential.’

The county’s usual process is to publicly report out and approve proposed settlements above $100,000, though in this case county officials opted to approve it behind closed doors. County Counsel Dawyn Harrison’s office has not answered LAist’s questions asking why.

As part of the settlement, Davenport gave up her right to sue the county over her Measure G claims and over anything else that happened previously between herself and the county. Neither side admitted liability, according to the deal, and Davenport continued in her job as CEO.

The agreement requires Davenport to keep the existence of the settlement and its contents “strictly private and confidential,” with limited exceptions.

The settlement also stipulates that Davenport cannot “make, induce or cause any other person or entity to make negative statements or communications disparaging” the Board of Supervisors and other county officials. There are exceptions, including for required testimony and for disclosing workplace conduct that she believes to be unlawful.

L.A. County’s attorneys have not disclosed a third letter referenced in Davenport’s claim, from December 2024.

Nicole Davis Tinkham, the chief deputy county counsel who signed the public records response, has not responded to an LAist request for an explanation for why the record apparently was withheld.

Davenport began an unscheduled leave of absence last week that is expected to last until early next year, according to her office. She did not give a reason in her announcement to her staff but later told LAist her leave was for unspecified medical reasons.

The leave is unrelated to the settlement, according to her office.

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

Since 1977, Richard Santillan has been to every Opening Day game at Dodger Stadium. 

“The tradition goes from my father, to me, to my children and grandchildren. Some of my best memories are with my father and children here at Dodger Stadium,” Santillan told The LA Local, smiling under the shade of palm trees near the entrance to the ballpark Wednesday morning. He was there to protest the team less than 24 hours before Opening Day.

Santillan, like countless other loyal Dodgers fans, is grappling with his fan identity over the team’s decision to accept an invitation to the White House and owner Mark Walter’s ties to ICE detention facilities.

More than 30 people joined Santillan on Wednesday morning for a press conference held near 1000 Vin Scully Drive to convey a message directly to the team. 

“We are demanding the Dodgers stop participating in funding of inhumane treatment of families and do not go to the White House to celebrate with the criminal in chief,” Evelyn Escatiola told the crowd. “Together, we have the power to make a change.”

Escatiola, a former dean of East Los Angeles College and longtime community organizer, urged fans to flex their economic power by “letting the Dodgers know that we do not support repression.”

Jorge “Coqui” Rodriguez, a lifelong Dodgers fan, spoke to the crowd and called on Dodgers ownership to divest from immigration detention centers owned and operated by GEO Group and CoreCivic.

Jorge Coqui H Rodriguez speaks at a press conference outside Dodger Stadium on March 25, 2026, to demand the Dodgers not to visit the White House following their 2025 World Series win.

(

J.W. Hendricks

/

The LA Local

)

In a phone interview a day before the protest, Rodriguez told The LA Local he did not want the Dodgers using his “cheve” or beer money to fund detention centers. 

“They can’t take our parking money, our cacahuate money, our cheve money, our Dodger Dog money and invest those funds into corporations that are imprisoning people. It’s wrong,” Rodriguez said. 

Rodriguez considers the Dodgers one of the most racially diverse teams and said the players need to support fans at a time when heightened immigration enforcement has become more common across L.A.

The team’s 2025’s visit to the White House drew ire from the largely Latino fan base, citing the Trump administration’s ongoing attacks on immigrants. 

In June, the team came under further scrutiny when rumors swirled online that federal immigration agents were using the stadium’s parking, which immigration authorities later denied in statements posted on social media accounts.

The team again came under fire after not releasing a statement on the impacts of ICE raids on its mostly Latino fan base at the height of immigration enforcement last summer. The team later agreed to invest $1 million to support families affected by immigration enforcement.

When he learned the Dodgers were pledging only $1 million to families in need, Rodriguez called the amount a  “slap in the face.” 

“These guys just bought the Lakers for billions of dollars and they give a million dollars to fight for legal services? That’s a joke,” Rodriguez said. “They need to have a moral backbone and not be investing in those companies.”

According to reporting from the Los Angeles Times, former Dodgers pitcher Clayton Kershawsaid last week that he is looking forward to the trip.

“I went when President [Joe] Biden was in office. I’m going to go when President [Donald] Trump is in office,” Kershaw said. “To me, it’s just about getting to go to the White House. You don’t get that opportunity every day, so I’m excited to go.”

The Dodgers have yet to announce when their planned visit will take place. 

Santillan sometimes laments his decision to give up his season tickets in protest of the team. His connection to the stadium and the memories he has made there with family and friends will last a lifetime, he said. On Thursday, he will uphold his tradition and be there for the first pitch of the season, but with a heavy heart.

“It’s a family tradition, but the Dodgers have a lot of work to do,” he said.

A local favorite mom-and-pop bookshop in Eagle Rock is facing displacement due to a steep rent hike. The owners say theirs is just one of several small businesses along Eagle Rock Boulevard struggling to keep up with lease increases.

Over the past 19 years, many in the neighborhood have come to love READ Books for its eclectic collection of used titles and shop dog Florence.

Co-owner Jeremy Kaplan said it’s been a delight to grow with the community over the years.

“Like seeing kids come back in, who were in grade school and now they’re in college,” Kaplan said.

But the building where Kaplan and wife Debbie rent was recently sold, and the rent increased by more than 130% to $2,805 a month, Kaplan said. He told LAist it was an increase his small business simply could not absorb.

Kaplan said he originally was given 30 days notice of the rent increase. After some research, assistance from Councilmember Ysabel Jurado’s office and some pro-bono legal help, Kaplan said he pushed back and got the 90-day notice he’s afforded by state law.

California Senate Bill 1103 requires landlords to give businesses with five or less employees 90 days’ notice for rent increases exceeding 10%, among other protections.

Systems Real Estate, the property management company, did not immediately respond to LAist’s request for comment.

What can small businesses do? 

Nadia Segura, directing attorney of the Small Business Program at pro bono legal aid non-profit Bet Tzedek said California law does not currently allow for rent control for commercial tenancies.

Outside of the protections under SB 1103, Segura said small businesses like READ Books don’t have much other recourse. And even then, commercial landlords are not required to inform their tenants of their protections under the law.

“There’s still a lot of people that don’t know about SB 1103. And then it’s very sad that they tell them they have these rent increases and within a month they have to leave,” Segura said.

She said her group is seeing steep rent hikes like this for commercial tenants across the city.

“We are seeing this even more with the World Cup coming up, the Olympics coming up. And I will say it was very sad to see that also after the wildfires,” Segura said.

Part of Bet Tzedek’s ongoing work is to advocate for small businesses, working with landlords who are increasing rents to see if they are willing to give business owners longer leases that lock in rents.

What’s next 

After READ Books posted about their situation on social media, commenters chimed in to express their outrage and love for the little shop.

While he looks for a new spot, Kaplan says he’s forming a coalition of local businesses and activist groups to see what can be done to help other small businesses facing similar displacement. He wants to address the displacement issue for businesses like his, which have made Eagle Rock the distinctive neighborhood that it is today.

Owl Talk, a longtime Eagle Rock staple selling clothing and accessories in a unit in the same building as READ Books, is facing a “more than double” rent increase, according to a post on their Instagram account.

Kaplan said he’s been in touch with the office of state Assemblywoman Jessica Caloza and wants to explore the possibility of introducing legislation to set up protections for small businesses like his, including rent-control measures or a vacancy tax for landlords. Kaplan said he also reached out to the office of state Sen. Maria Durazo.

By his count, Kaplan said there are about a dozen businesses within surrounding blocks that are at risk of closing their doors or have shuttered due to rent increases or other struggles.

When READ Books was founded during the Great Recession, Kaplan said he knew it was a longshot to open a bookstore at the same time so many were struggling to stay in business.

“It was kind of interesting to be doing something that neighborhoods needed. That was important to me growing up, that was important to my children, that was important to my wife growing up,” Kaplan said.

“And then somebody comes in and says, ‘We’re gonna over double your rent.”

Topline:

Frozen budget: Most of the city’s Bureau of Street Lighting budget comes from an assessment that people who own property illuminated by lights pay on their county property tax bill. The amount people pay depends on the kind of property they own and how much they benefit from lighting. A typical single-family home currently pays $53 annually, and in total, the assessments bring in about $45 million annually for the city to repair and maintain streetlights. Changing the amount the Bureau of Street Lighting gets from the assessment requires a vote among property owners who benefit from the lights.

Ballots: L.A. City Council’s vote gives city staff the green light to prepare and send out those ballots. Miguel Sangalang, who oversees the bureau, said at a committee meeting earlier this month that he expects to send out ballots by April 17. Notices about the ballots will be sent out prior to the ballots themselves.

Near unanimous vote: L.A. City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez was the only “No” vote Tuesday, saying she wanted to see a more current strategic plan for the bureau. Sangalang said the bureau developed a plan in 2022 that lays out how money will be spent. Councilmember Imelda Padilla was absent for the vote.

Vote count: Votes will be weighted according to the assessment amount. Basically, the more you’re asked to pay yearly to maintain streetlights, the more your vote will count. Ballots received before June 2 will be tabulated by the L.A. City Clerk.

How much more money: According to a report, the amount needed in assessments from property owners to meet the repair and maintenance needs of the city’s streetlighting in the next fiscal year is nearly $112 million.

Use of the money: Sangalang said at a March 11 committee meeting that the extra funds would be used to double the number of staff to handle repairs and procure solar streetlights, which don’t face the threat of copper wire theft. That would all potentially reduce the time it takes to repair simple fixes down to a week. Currently, city residents wait for months to see broken streetlights repaired. The assessment would come with a three-year auditing mechanism.