Weeks ago, the Los Angeles City Council unanimously voted to censure council members Kevin de León, Gil Cedillo and Nury Martinez for their racist comments in a backroom conversation in 2021 that was secretly taped and leaked in October. But in reality the council has no clear power to follow up with any punishment.
Now, the city council’s new Ad Hoc Committee on City Governance Reform, established in response to the scandal, is investigating possible ways to punish colleagues. Martinez resigned after the tape was leaked and Cedillo’s term ends in a few days. But de León’s term runs until 2024 and he has remained steadfast in staying in office, defying calls to step down.
The L.A. City Charter does not include penalties that could be applied to de Leon by the city council. But an October motion by Council President Paul Krekorian and Councilman Marqueece Harris-Dawson — both of whom sit on the new ad hoc committee — suggested exploring punishments such as limiting a censured council member’s access to their discretionary funds, and limiting their power to authorize contracts. Another potential punishment could be to prohibit a censured member from using city funds to send mass mailers to constituents.
Some of de León’s constituents have posted pictures on social media of mailers they got from de Leon inviting them to a holiday tree lighting event, without a disclaimer that he paid to mail them.
But Councilmember Monica Rodriguez, who is not on the ad hoc committee, is warning that cutting discretionary funding and contract services in order to punish de Leon could instead punish his mostly working-class Latino constituents, and local businesses and community organizations.
Limiting funds meant for de Leon’s district could result in a “substantial impact on over 185 organizations and 260,000 constituents,” according to Rodriguez, including $600,000 for cleaning crews, $600,000 in special event rentals for schools and seniors, $200,000 for community organizations, $129,000 for more than 5,000 turkeys for Thanksgiving and $100,000 in food giveaways to Boyle Heights families.
Rodriguez asked the committee to delay the motion and “not impetuously move toward making decisions.” She called the restricting of the councilmember’s discretionary funds “neither responsible nor necessary.”
“The approval of this motion would cause instant collateral damage and unjust denials of vested services to many economically vulnerable people outside your districts,” Rodriguez wrote in a letter to the ad hoc committee, adding that the majority of the population in de León’s district consists of working-class Latinos.
Rodriguez, later addressing the ad hoc committee during it meeting, stressed that she was “disgusted” and “disappointed about reprehensible acts of colleagues.” But she said, “The acts are indefensible, but they’re not illegal.”
She cautioned against the council trying to “extrapolate more than what our power affords us in these positions.”
“I also believe in making sure that no constituency suffers through being obstructed from services, from being withheld the resources and representation that they are afforded by having an elected member,” Rodriguez said.
Rodriguez was also the lone dissenter on the vote to establish the committee. She told City News Service last month that she didn’t believe the council had the credibility to reform itself, calling the committee a “ruse to reform.” She wants an independent body.
The ad hoc committee also heard from Jennifer Barraza, de León’s chief of staff. Barraza did not address de León’s refusal to resign or his absence from council meetings for nearly two months, but called the motion seeking consequences for censured councilmembers an “attempt to disempower a majority Latino district.”
“This vote doesn’t help people,” Barraza said. “Those people that work hard, sometimes two or three jobs to pay our salaries are watching today, and they depend on you to make the right decision and not move this motion forward.”
De León, who earns more than $8,000 biweekly, is still earning his salary. He has not attended a council meeting since Oct. 11.
Krekorian, the ad hoc committee chair, stressed that the motion only starts a discussion about whether repercussions for censured council members are appropriate.
“And if so, what should those repercussions be and how do we strike the balance between taking actions that will be appropriate for the misconduct of a member — without doing things that will harm the constituents that member represents?” Krekorian said.