The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a $2 million settlement for the county's CEO, Fesia Davenport, following her claims that the voter-approved Measure G caused her "physical, emotional and mental distress". CBS Los Angeles reports that the measure, which was passed by voters in 2024, will make her position an elected one starting in 2028, contrary to the traditional appointment by the supervisors. CBS Los Angeles also notes that the board feared potential lawsuits from Davenport over the alterations to her job.
In her claim for the settlement, Davenport indicated that Measure G not only prompted a shift in the CEO selection process but also impugned her reputation. According to the text obtained by LAist, she argued that the measure implied she lacked the "strong, elected executive leadership" necessary to tackle county challenges. Additionally, Davenport mentioned in letters, made public through the state's transparency law, that her career and future retirement plans have been prematurely cut short, as she had intended to continue serving past the imposed 2028 limit. LAist revealed that Davenport's initial settlement demand was the very $2 million she received.
The controversy around the settlement comes at a time when the county is faced with financial strains, highlighted during a meeting where the settlement was announced. Critics, such as Morgan Miller of the Yes on Measure G campaign, have called the settlement payout to a public official using taxpayer money "hypocrisy at its worst", given the county's stringent financial circumstances and recent payouts to victims of abuses in county facilities. Davenport has since gone on medical leave and is expected back in early 2026, reports claim, unrelated to the settlement going public. This was confirmed by a spokesperson for Los Angeles County.
Measure G, which targets an overhaul of L.A. County's bureaucracy by increasing the board size to nine and making the CEO position elected, has had mixed reactions. Despite approval by county voters, opponents worry that it could introduce politics into a role that's primarily administrative, as stated by the Los Angeles Times. In her settlement letters, Davenport highlighted the special circumstances of her claim, distinguishing it from the severance received by other county executives like her predecessor, Sachi Hamai, which amounted to $1.5 million. Her terms of settlement prevent any future lawsuits pertaining to Measure G's effects on her employment.
Proponents of Measure G, such as Los Angeles County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, have voiced strong support for the measure, claiming it creates "a more transparent and accountable government." Horvath, who helped introduce the measure, reiterated its purpose to "[put] the power back in the hands of the people." Nonetheless, the unfolding fallout from this structural change and its impact on those currently in power, like Davenport, has been taxing, revealing the deep complexities of reforming government structures and the personal toll on those caught at the intersection of governance and the will of the electorate.
