A years-long outside investigation has found that the vast majority of contracts signed by Los Angeles County during the 12-year term of former Supervisor Mark Ridley Thomas, a feared politician who was convicted on corruption charges last year, contained fraud. It wasn’t.
Dan Sharman, a partner at the law firm Covington & Burling, told county supervisors on Tuesday that they “could not identify a pattern of corruption or fraud.” “That’s good news.”
The bad news, Sharman continued, is that the county’s contracting process, which has been scrutinized by nearly three years of forensic audits, is full of holes.
The company says the county rarely suspends problem contractors. Officials discuss county business on personal telephone calls. Contracts may also be awarded directly to vendors without being put out to bid without a clear explanation.
These were among the key findings of an investigation ordered by the Board of Supervisors in October 2021, shortly after Ridley-Thomas was indicted. A federal jury later found Ridley-Thomas guilty of one count each of bribery, conspiracy, and honest services mail fraud, as well as one count each of honest services mail fraud, for transferring $100,000 in campaign funds through USC to a nonprofit organization run by her son. He was found guilty on four counts of wire fraud.
Ridley Thomas, who served as a county commissioner from 2008 to 2020 before joining the Los Angeles City Council, remains free while he appeals his conviction.
Following the indictment, the commission hired Covington & Burling and FTI Consulting to review county policies and determine whether other contracts were contaminated during Ridley-Thomas’ tenure.
Three years later, after reviewing 200 contracts worth about $1.7 billion, representatives from both companies say the findings are “mixed” and that they will not give the county government a “full health report.” He said he couldn’t do it.
They say the county too often does not adequately vet contractors that receive millions of dollars in public money.
“At the end of the day, counties need to know who they’re dealing with,” said Duane Campbell, a forensic accounting expert with FTI Consulting.
Hilda Solis, the supervisor who led the investigation, called the findings “sobering.”
“Our duty is to make sure that we truly value our taxpayers’ money,” she said.
The county had previously refused to tell the Times, citing attorney-client privilege, how much it paid the two firms for the investigation, which has dragged on at least a year longer than expected.
Furthermore, it seems unlikely that the public will see the final report. The county did not directly respond to a media request from the Times.
“We will not comment on this confidential, independent review other than to note that the county’s next step following today’s public presentation is to fully analyze and operationalize Covington’s recommendations,” the county said in a statement. said.
The study was summarized in nine slides for public presentation, including a title page and a slide simply labeled “Conclusions.”
Representatives from both companies were vague in their public statements Tuesday, not mentioning specific instances of corruption they may have encountered, instead focusing on recommendations to strengthen county contracts. Ta.
These improvements include creating a new “Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer” position and strengthening the county’s “revolving door policy” aimed at preventing conflicts of interest for employees who have recently left public service. That was included.
The companies’ recommendations were heavily attacked by supporters of Policy G, the governance reform bill on the Nov. 5 ballot. The measure would create an ethics and compliance officer similar to what companies had recommended, nearly double the size of the board of directors, and create a new elected executive position similar to the mayor. .
“It is clear that our country’s outdated governance model has fostered corruption with weak ethics oversight and a revolving door of unchecked influence,” Major G Campaign Chair Morgan Miller said in a statement.
County supervisors, who are divided on the measure, have said they intend to move forward with creating an ethics commission regardless of the outcome of the election.
