LA County’s $2M CEO payout was over claims she was harmed by ballot measure

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.”

Keep up with LAist.

If you're enjoying this article, you'll love our daily newsletter, The LA Report. Each weekday, catch up on the 5 most pressing stories to start your morning in 3 minutes or less.

Subscribe

“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.