draft

Months after the devastating Palisades fire, the head of the Los Angeles Fire Commission inquired about the Fire Department’s long-awaited after-action report.

Interim Fire Chief Ronnie Villanueva said that a “working draft” had been sent to Mayor Karen Bass’ office, Genethia Hudley Hayes told The Times on Tuesday.

In the conversation, which took place in mid-August or later, Villanueva said that the mayor’s office had asked for “refinements,” but he did not say what they were, according to Hudley Hayes.

Hudley Hayes, who was appointed by Bass in June 2023 to serve on the five-member commission that provides civilian oversight of the LAFD, said that in her long career in civic roles, she had learned that words like “refinements” could mean troubling changes to a government report, made for the purpose of hiding facts.

Earlier Tuesday, Fire Chief Jaime Moore, responding to the findings of a Times investigation, acknowledged that the after-action report had been edited to soften criticism of the LAFD leadership’s handling of the Palisades fire.

The Times had previously reported that Hudley Hayes was concerned enough about possible edits that she sought advice from a deputy city attorney.

But Hudley Hayes’ remarks Tuesday were her first public statements that her concerns stemmed from what she understood to be the mayor’s office’s possible intent to influence the report, which was supposed to lay out what went wrong in fighting the Palisades fire and how to prevent the mistakes from happening again.

Hudley Hayes said that after reviewing an early draft of the after-action report, as well as the final document released by the LAFD on Oct. 8, she was satisfied that “material findings” were not altered.

But her account raises questions about the mayor’s role in revisions to the report that, as Moore conceded Tuesday, downplayed the city’s failures in preparing for and responding to the fire, which killed 12 people and leveled much of the Palisades and surrounding areas.

On Tuesday, Bass’ office did not immediately explain what the refinements were. A spokesperson previously said that the office did not demand changes to the drafts and only asked the LAFD to confirm the accuracy of items such as how the weather and the department’s budget factored into the disaster.

“The report was written and edited by the Fire Department,” the spokesperson, Clara Karger, said in an email last month. “We did not red-line, review every page or review every draft of the report.”

The Times obtained and analyzed seven drafts of the report and identified deletions and revisions. The most significant changes in the various iterations of the report involved the LAFD’s deployment decisions before the fire, as the wind warnings became increasingly dire.

In one instance, LAFD officials removed language saying that the decision not to fully staff up and pre-deploy all available crews and engines ahead of the extreme wind forecast “did not align” with the department’s policy and procedures during red flag days. Instead, the final report said that the number of engine companies rolled out ahead of the fire “went above and beyond the standard LAFD pre-deployment matrix.”

Moore, who replaced Villanueva in November, admitted that the report was watered down to shield top brass from scrutiny.

“It is now clear that multiple drafts were edited to soften language and reduce explicit criticism of department leadership in that final report,” Moore said at a Fire Commission meeting Tuesday. “This editing occurred prior to my appointment as fire chief. And I can assure you that nothing of this sort will ever again happen while I am fire chief.”

The LAFD did not respond to a query about who ordered the changes to the report. Villanueva also did not respond Tuesday to requests for comment.

Hudley Hayes said she reached out to Villanueva around Aug. 21, when The Times published a story quoting a colleague on the Fire Commission, Sharon Delugach, expressing a desire to see the after-action report.

“It occurred to me then that she was correct. We hadn’t seen one — it was taking a long time,” Hudley Hayes said. “That’s the point I called interim Chief Villanueva.”

Meanwhile, the author of the report, Battalion Chief Kenneth Cook, had emailed a PDF of his report to Villanueva in early August, asking the chief to select a couple of people to provide edits so he could make the changes in his Word document.

The following week, Cook emailed the chief his final draft.

“Thank you for all your hard work,” Villanueva responded. “I’ll let you know how we’re going to move forward.”

Over the next two months, the report went through a series of edits — behind closed doors and without Cook’s involvement, as The Times disclosed last month.

On Oct. 8, the same day the report was released, Cook emailed Villanueva, declining to endorse the public version because of changes that altered his findings and made the report “highly unprofessional and inconsistent with our established standards.”

“Having reviewed the revised version submitted by your office, I must respectfully decline to endorse it in its current form,” Cook wrote in the email obtained by The Times. “The document has undergone substantial modifications and contains significant deletions of information that, in some instances, alter the conclusions originally presented.”

A July email thread reviewed by The Times shows that the LAFD formed a “crisis management workgroup” to deal with concerns about how the after-action report would be received.

“The primary goal of this workgroup is to collaboratively manage communications for any critical public relations issue that may arise. The immediate and most pressing crisis is the Palisades After Action Report,” LAFD Assistant Chief Kairi Brown wrote in an email to eight other people.

“With significant interest from media, politicians, and the community, it is crucial that we present a unified response to anticipated questions and concerns,” Brown wrote. “By doing so, we can ensure our messaging is clear and consistent, allowing us to create our own narrative rather than reactive responses.”

Hudley Hayes, who previously served on the L.A. Unified school board, said she did not think “there was any critical material removed” from the final report.

She said she noticed only small differences, such as “mistakes” being changed to “challenges,” and the removal of firefighters’ names.

She added that she does not know who ordered the changes disclosed by The Times — and despite her oversight role, is “not particularly” interested in finding out.

“Our job is to take the report that we have in front of us. Our job is to make sure those recommendations that came to us from a public report are taken care of,” she said. “You’re asking me political questions.”

Pringle is a former Times staff writer.

Dec. 28 (Asia Today) — A research team at Yonsei University has built a generative AI-based medical record system that is now being used at Severance Hospital, aiming to cut doctors’ documentation time and allow more focus on patient care.

The system, known as Y-NOT and implemented through the hospital’s “Y-NOT” record platform, uses a large language model to draft admission and discharge notes for clinicians to review, according to Professor Yoo Seung-chan of Yonsei University’s Department of Biomedical Systems and Information Science.

“Why should we spend more time sitting in front of computers than seeing patients?” Yoo said, describing a question often raised by emergency care staff that helped drive the project.

Yoo said he began full-scale development last year as administrative burdens on medical staff intensified during tensions between doctors and the government. He said the team judged AI technology had matured enough to meaningfully reduce record-keeping workload and started development.

The project began in July last year and was deployed in clinical settings by November, Yoo said, with model development and hospital rollout carried out in parallel. He said the team focused first on achievable clinical usefulness rather than pushing only for maximum model performance.

Some medical staff initially expressed concerns, including the risk of errors in records, questions over responsibility for mistakes and worries that the system could infringe on physicians’ authority. Yoo said two surveys conducted after implementation showed those concerns eased, with especially strong satisfaction among older staff.

He said the team framed the system as supporting, not replacing, clinicians. Doctors continue to diagnose and make decisions, he said, while the AI drafts and organizes documentation for verification. Yoo added that some staff said the system made care easier because it reduced the need to manually search through past electronic records.

The “Y-NOT” system is now used beyond the emergency department, including operating rooms and inpatient wards, for broader record management, Yoo said.

The time required to create emergency room medical records fell by more than half, according to the report, dropping from 69.5 seconds to 32 seconds. Staff have said the reduced documentation burden gives them time to make eye contact with patients, Yoo said.

He said evaluations indicate record completeness and standardization have improved across care teams, including nurses, and that the time saved helps emergency physicians move quickly to the next patient or offer additional guidance to patients leaving the hospital.

Yoo said the longer-term goal extends beyond a documentation tool to an intelligent agent system designed to support safe care aligned with global standards. That direction is tied to Severance Hospital’s “Doctor Answer 3.0” project, he said, and future plans include exploring ways for patients to communicate with an AI system based on their own medical records.

Yoo said AI could help address rising medical demand tied to population aging and a decline in essential medical staff. He said it could support guideline-based care for clinicians and help patients maintain a sense of continuous connection to the hospital after discharge.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

The author of the Los Angeles Fire Department’s after-action report on the Palisades fire declined to endorse it because of substantial deletions that altered his findings, calling the edited version “highly unprofessional and inconsistent with our established standards.”

Battalion Chief Kenneth Cook emailed then-interim Fire Chief Ronnie Villanueva and other LAFD officials with the subject line “Palisades AARR Non-Endorsement,” about an hour after the highly anticipated report was made public Oct. 8.

“Having reviewed the revised version submitted by your office, I must respectfully decline to endorse it in its current form,” Cook wrote in the email obtained by The Times. “The document has undergone substantial modifications and contains significant deletions of information that, in some instances, alter the conclusions originally presented.”

Battalion Chief Kenneth Cook complained to former interim Fire Chief Ronnie Villanueva about deletions and revisions in the Palisades fire after-action report.

(L.A. City Mayor’s Office)

He continued, “While I fully understand the need to address potential liability concerns and to modify certain sections in consultation with the City Attorney to mitigate litigation risks, the current version appears highly unprofessional and inconsistent with our established standards. I strongly urge you to reconsider publishing the report as it stands.”

In the email, Cook also raised concerns that the LAFD’s final report would be at odds with a report on the January wildfires commissioned by Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office, which has yet to be released.

“I am concerned that substantial disparities may exist between the two reports,” Cook wrote.

Izzy Gardon, a spokesperson for Newsom, said in a statement Tuesday, “The Governor commissioned an independent review by the world’s leading fire safety experts to ensure the public receives a complete, accurate, and unvarnished accounting of the events leading up to the Palisades fire and how responding agencies carried out their response.”

Cook — who emails show provided a final draft of the after-action report to Villanueva in August — has declined to comment. Attempts to reach Villanueva were unsuccessful.

The LAFD has refused to answer questions from The Times about the deletions and revisions. Mayor Karen Bass’ office said the LAFD wrote and edited the report, and that the mayor did not demand changes.

On Sunday, The Times reported that Cook was upset about the changes to the report. The previous day, The Times had disclosed the watering down of the after-action report after analyzing seven drafts obtained through a public records request. The most significant changes involved the LAFD’s failure to order firefighters to stay on duty for an additional shift and to fully pre-deploy engines in high-risk areas before the Jan. 7 fire, as the wind warnings became increasingly dire. It’s unclear who exactly directed the revisions.

Cook’s Oct. 8 email laying out his concerns in stark language adds to the growing evidence that city and LAFD officials attempted to burnish the LAFD’s image in a report that should have been an honest assessment of the department’s failings in preparing for and fighting the fire, which killed 12 people and destroyed thousands of homes. The goal of such a report is to prevent similar mistakes.

Cook’s email reached Bass’ office in mid-November, according to Bass spokesperson Clara Karger.

Karger said last week that “the Mayor has inquired with Chief Moore about the concerns,” referring to Jaime Moore, who became LAFD chief last month.

The Times submitted a public records request last month for all of the mayor’s emails about the after-action report, a request that the city has not yet fulfilled. Bass’ office provided Cook’s email to The Times on Tuesday.

The city had withheld Cook’s email from its response to a separate records request filed by an unknown party in October. Almost 180 of Cook’s emails were posted on the city’s records portal on Dec. 9, but the one that expressed his concerns about the report was missing. That email was only posted on the portal Tuesday, after The Times asked about it.

The LAFD did not respond to a Times query about why the email was not released with Cook’s other emails. Bass’s office also did not respond to a query about Cook’s concerns and the fact that they were withheld from the public.

Gene Cameron, who lived in the Palisades for 50 years before his home burned down in the Jan. 7 fire, was disturbed by the LAFD’s revisions, which he said amounted to a cover up.

“I appreciate his bravery to stand up against these unprofessional immoral edits,” he said of Cook, adding that the point of the report is not to assign blame, but to prevent future mistakes. “It’s just to establish a set of rules, procedures and guidelines so that this doesn’t happen again.”

City Councilmember Traci Park, whose district includes the Palisades, said in a statement Tuesday that the city can’t fix systemic failures or rebuild public trust without full transparency.

“I’ve said from the beginning that LAFD should not be investigating itself. After a disaster of this magnitude, the public deserves a full, unfiltered accounting of what went wrong and why — and my independent after-action report will provide exactly that,” she said, referring to a report she requested that the City Council approved and funded earlier this year, though it hasn’t been completed.

Genethia Hudley Hayes, president of the Board of Fire Commissioners, did not immediately respond Tuesday to a request for comment. She previously told The Times that she heard rumors that the author of the report was unhappy, but that she did not look into the matter.

A July email thread reviewed by The Times shows concern over how the after-action report would be received, with the LAFD forming a “crisis management workgroup.”

“The primary goal of this workgroup is to collaboratively manage communications for any critical public relations issue that may arise. The immediate and most pressing crisis is the Palisades After Action Report,” LAFD Asst. Chief Kairi Brown wrote in an email to eight other people.

“With significant interest from media, politicians, and the community, it is crucial that we present a unified response to anticipated questions and concerns,” Brown wrote. “By doing so, we can ensure our messaging is clear and consistent, allowing us to create our own narrative rather than reactive responses.”

Cook was not included on that email thread. It’s unclear how much of a role, if any, that group had on the revisions.

The after-action report has been widely criticized for failing to examine a New Year’s Day fire that later reignited into the Palisades fire. Bass has ordered the LAFD to commission an independent investigation into its missteps in putting out the earlier fire.

One edit to the after-action report involved language stating that the decision to not fully staff up and pre-deploy all available crews and engines ahead of the extreme wind forecast “did not align” with the department’s policy and procedures during red flag days.

The final report did not include that language, saying instead that the number of engine companies rolled out ahead of the fire “went above and beyond the standard LAFD pre-deployment matrix.”

A section on “failures” was renamed “primary challenges,” and an item saying that crews and leaders had violated national guidelines on how to avoid firefighter deaths and injuries was scratched.

Another passage that was deleted said that some crews waited more than an hour for an assignment the day of the fire.

Two drafts contain notes typed in the margins with suggestions that seemed intended to soften the report’s effect and make the Fire Department look good. One note proposed replacing the image on the cover page — which showed palm trees on fire against an orange sky — with a “positive” one, such as “firefighters on the frontline.” The final report’s cover displays the LAFD seal.

The final version listed only 42 items in the section on recommendations and lessons learned, while the first version reviewed by The Times listed 74.

The year was already a debacle for the Los Angeles Fire Department and Mayor Karen Bass, with multiple stumbles before and after the epic January blaze that obliterated Pacific Palisades, so it was hard to imagine that things could get worse in the closing days of 2025.

But they have.

A blistering Times investigation found that the Fire Department cleaned up its after-action report, downplaying missteps.

In other words, there was a blatant attempt to mislead the public.

And Bass representatives said they requested that her comments in the final minutes of a video interview — in which she admitted that “both sides botched it” in the Eaton and Palisades fires — be edited out because she thought the interview had ended.

Please.

Together, these developments will echo through the coming mayoral election, in which Bass will be called out repeatedly over one of the greatest disasters in L.A. history. We’re a long way from knowing whether she can survive and win a second term, but Austin Beutner and any other legitimate contenders are being handed gifts that will keep on giving.

In the case of the altered report, kudos to Times reporters Alene Tchekmedyian and Paul Pringle, who have been trying all year to keep the LAFD honest, which is no easy task.

In the latest bombshell dropped by the two reporters, they dug up seven drafts of the department’s self-analysis, or after-action report, and found that it had been altered multiple times to soften damning conclusions.

Language saying LAFD did not fully pre-deploy all crews and engines, despite the forecast of extreme conditions, was removed.

Language saying some crews waited more than an hour for their assignments during the fire was removed.

A section on “failures” became a section on “primary challenges.”

A reference to a violation of national guidelines on how to avoid firefighter injury and death was removed.

The central role of the earlier Lachman fire, allegedly started by an arsonist, was also sanitized. A reference to that unchecked brushfire, which later sparked the inferno, was deleted from one draft, then restored in the final version. But only in a brief reference.

Even before the smoke cleared on Jan. 7, I had one former LAFD official telling me he was certain the earlier fire had not been properly extinguished. Crews should have been sitting on it, but as The Times has reported, that didn’t happen.

What we now know with absolute clarity is that the LAFD cannot be trusted to honestly and thoroughly investigate itself. And yet after having fired one chief, Bass asked the current chief to do an investigation.

Sue Pascoe, who lost her home in the fire and is among the thousands who don’t yet know whether they can afford to rebuild because their insurance — if they had any — doesn’t cover the cost of new construction. Pascoe, editor of the local publication Circling the News, had this reaction to the latest expose:

“To kill 12 people, let almost 7,000 homes/businesses burn, and to destroy belongings, memorabilia and memories stored in the homes — someone needs to be held accountable.”

But who will that be?

Although the altered after-action report seems designed to have minimized blame for the LAFD, if not the mayor, the Bass administration said it wasn’t involved.

“We did not red-line, review every page or review every draft of the report,” a spokesperson told the Times. “We did not discuss the Lachman Fire because it was not part of the report.”

Genethia Hudley Hayes, president of the Board of Fire Commissioners, told The Times she noticed only small differences between the final report and an earlier report she had seen.

“I was completely OK with it,” she said, adding that the final report “did not in any way obfuscate anything.”

Well I’m not OK with it, and I suspect a lot of people who lost everything in the fire feel the same way. As I’ve said before, the conditions were horrific, and there’s little doubt that firefighters did their best. But the evidence is mounting that the department’s brass blew it, or, to borrow a phrase from Bass, “botched it.”

As The Times’ David Zahniser reported, Bass said her “botched” comment came in a casual context after the podcast had ended. She also said she has made similar comments about the emergency response on numerous occasions.

She has made some critical comments, and as I mentioned, she replaced the fire chief. But the preparation and response were indeed botched. So why did her office want that portion of the interview deleted?

Let’s not forget, while we’re on the subject of botching things, that Bass left the country in the days before the fire despite warnings of catastrophic conditions. And while there’s been some progress in the recovery, her claim that things are moving at “lightning speed” overlooks the fact that thousands of burned out properties haven’t seen a hammer or a hardhat.

On her watch, we’ve seen multiple misses.

On the blunderous hiring and quick departure of a rebuilding czar. On the bungled hiring of a management team whose role was not entirely clear. On a failed tax relief plan for fire victims. On the still-undelievered promise of some building fee waivers.

In one of the latest twists on the after-action report, Tchekmedyian and Pringle report that the LAFD author was upset about revisions made without his involvement.

What a mess, and the story is likely to smolder into the new year.

If only the Lachman fire had been as watered down as the after-action report.

steve.lopez@latimes.com

Phillip Danault’s decreasing role with the Kings led to the veteran two-way center getting an opportunity for a fresh start in a familiar setting after being traded to the Montreal Canadiens on Friday.

The Kings acquired a second-round draft pick while also freeing up salary-cap space and ice time for other players in the trade reached just before the NHL holiday roster freeze on Saturday. The draft pick the Kings landed is one Montreal previously acquired in a trade with the Columbus Blue Jackets.

Prompting the move for the Kings was the development of Quinton Byfield and Alex Laferriere, and the offseason additions of Joel Armia and Corey Perry. General manager Ken Holland also expressed a desire to provide more playing time for Alex Turcotte and second-year center Samuel Helenius.

“Phil’s role changed here, got reduced on the penalty killing and on the power play. It’s been a bit of a struggle here offensively for Phil since the start of the year,” Holland said on a video call.

“So I found a trading partner, and I think it’s going to be good for Phil,” he added. “He gets to go back to a city where he had a lot of success. And we get a second-round pick and obviously we see some cap space to use going forward.”

Danault was in the fifth season of a six-year, $33 million contract he signed with the Kings in the summer of 2021.

The 32-year-old Danault, who topped 40 points in each of his first four seasons with the Kings, hasn’t scored a goal and has just five assists in 30 games, while missing the past four with an illness. Holland said he consulted with Danault and his agent in opening trade discussions before landing what he believed was the best offer.

Danault, who is from Victoriaville, Quebec, returns to Montreal where he spent six seasons and established himself as one of the league’s better defensive-minded forwards.

He had 54 goals and 194 points in 360 games with Montreal over a stretch that ended with the Canadiens reaching the 2021 Stanley Cup Final, which they lost in five games to Tampa Bay.

Danault was selected in the first round of the 2011 draft by Chicago, and spent his first two seasons with the Blackhawks before being traded to Montreal.

The Canadiens add a 12-year veteran to a young, up-and-coming team that reached the playoffs last season for the first time since 2021, and is in the thick of a tightly packed race. At 18-12-4, Montreal enters Saturday eighth in the Eastern Conference standings with eight points separating the last-place Blue Jackets and second-place Washington Capitals.

The Kings are in a similar situation in the West. At 15-10-9, they’re seventh, with eight points separating the 10th-place St. Louis Blues and fourth-place Vegas Golden Knights.

The trade comes after the Kings ended an 0-2-2 skid with a 2-1 win at Tampa Bay on Thursday night.

Holland acknowledged the Kings need more offensive production — they rank 28th in the NHL, averaging 2.56 goals per game. But he’s pleased with the team’s defensive play and goaltending, with the Kings ranking third in giving up 2.5 goals per outing.

“Certainly we need more goals,” he said, noting the Kings are a combined 5-9 in overtime and shootouts. “I’m hoping that some of the people that have scored in the past will start to score here going forward.”

Holland also backed third-year coach Jim Hiller by noting how the Kings are no different than a number of NHL teams approaching the midway point of the season.

“If we’re in a malaise, then 25 teams are in a malaise. Like, the whole league’s packed together,” Holland said. “Jim’s done a good job, and our team is playing very structured and competes every night.”