mayors

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.

SAN FRANCISCO — He’s considered a darling of Democratic Party politics, a smooth-talking young millionaire with Kennedy good looks who has basked in the media limelight while being courted as a possible national political figure.

But beneath the surface, Mayor Gavin Newsom’s Camelot has been crumbling.

After admitting in the last five days to adultery and alcohol abuse, Newsom has suffered a public political meltdown that has rocked City Hall and led one San Francisco supervisor to call for his resignation.

The 39-year-old mayor, who is running for reelection in November, acknowledged last week that he had an affair with the wife of a longtime aide. On Monday, he announced he would seek counseling because he had “come to the conclusion that I will be a better person without alcohol in my life.”

But the mayor’s problems appear to run deeper than behind-the-scenes indiscretions, raising questions about his ability to lead one of America’s largest cities.

Critics and backers alike now acknowledge that Newsom has become disengaged, reluctant to grapple with such critical issues as the city’s soaring homicide rate among black residents. In recent months, he has even refused to meet with supervisors — longtime supporters included.

In this famously forgiving place, some at City Hall say the mayor should be granted the leeway to deal with his problems while in office. Others express pent-up frustration and question whether he should continue to run for a second term.

Supervisor Jake McGoldrick on Tuesday called for Newsom’s resignation.

“If he lived by any code of honorable behavior, he would have a personal epiphany and do the right thing,” McGoldrick said. “The only epiphany he’s had is ‘How do we spin this?’ ”

Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier, a longtime Newsom ally, said it was too early to call for any political heads.

“Most people grapple with things in their lives, but most don’t have to do it publicly — and the mayor has taken that courageous step,” she said. “If anyone should call for his resignation, it should be city residents, and they haven’t done that.”

Meanwhile, public reaction to the mayor’s admissions appears to be mixed. Local newspaper websites have run the gamut — with comments supporting Newsom running about equal to those expressing anger and even vitriol.

As she lunched at a Financial District salad bar Tuesday, Adriana Pietras, 25, a paralegal, said Newsom’s actions have changed the way she views the mayor. “I don’t think he should resign,” she said, “But I’m not sure he should run again.”

Nearby, another voter said the mayor should leave office today.

“His transgression was a serious integrity issue,” said the man, who asked not to be named. “But he won’t ever resign. He’s a politician. Bill Clinton’s precedent gives him hope he can survive this.”

Elected to the mayor’s office in 2003, Newsom, a former supervisor, quickly won the adulation of San Franciscans with his forceful stance in support of same-sex marriages. Images of thousands of gay and lesbian couples receiving marriage licenses at San Francisco’s gilded City Hall were seen around the world.

Although some believed Newsom’s stand was too radical for the mainstream and contributed to the Democrats’ 2004 national election losses, his cachet continued to grow. Newsom’s image, with his slicked-back hair and aquiline nose, appeared on the covers of national news magazines.

He was, said Simon Rosenberg, founder of the New Democrat Network, which cultivates progressive political leadership, “arguably the single most promising Democrat under 40 in the country.”

“Whatever ‘it’ is,” Rosenberg said in 2004, “I think Gavin’s got it.”

Newsom took on celebrity status with an eager staff of aides and an aggressive spokesman with experience on national campaigns. News releases gushed about the mayor’s accomplishments.

He crafted a plan to offer healthcare to every resident. He touted San Francisco as among the world’s greenest cities and promised to provide free wireless access citywide.

But some community and business leaders have complained that the mayor’s inaccessibility may have cost the city dearly: the San Francisco 49ers suddenly announced in the midst of negotiations for a new stadium that the team was looking to move to nearby Santa Clara — in part because the team owner couldn’t get Newsom on the phone.

City government, meanwhile, is deadlocked as the mayor faces off against critics on the Board of Supervisors who characterize Newsom’s style as distant and arrogant. In November, supervisors brought a nonbinding ballot measure to voters suggesting that the mayor attend meetings to submit to “question time.”

Voters approved it. But Newsom dismissed it as a political gesture. Instead, he promised to hold community town hall meetings.

In response, angry residents showed up at one Newsom appearance dressed in chicken costumes.

Relations had so soured by January that in his inaugural speech as president of the Board of Supervisors, Aaron Peskin pointedly denounced an arrogant style-over-substance administration, saying, “We will lead by deeds and actions, not by hollow pronouncements and press releases.”

Newsom’s personal life first became controversial last fall after he briefly dated a woman who wasn’t old enough to drink legally.

Through it all, Newsom seemed to tire of the spotlight. Perhaps, he told the local media, he wouldn’t run for reelection after all. Perhaps he would just return to private life.

Then it all came crashing down.

Last Thursday, Newsom admitted having an affair with his former appointments secretary, the wife of one of his most trusted aides. The affair reportedly took place while the mayor was splitting from his then-wife, attorney and television analyst Kimberly Guilfoyle.

His plans for rehab followed on Monday — creating a stir in the national news media that Newsom has so often courted.

Tuesday’s headline in the New York Post: “S.F. ‘Sex’ Mayor in Booze RX.”

McGoldrick, the supervisor, called the headline a fitting comedown for a mayor “who lives by PR.”

“When that gets tarnished, there’s not much left,” he said.

Supervisor Bevan Dufty, a longtime Newsom friend, has called on McGoldrick to be patient, saying that Newsom needs time to heal.

But even Dufty said that the mayor’s personal crisis has taken a toll on city government.

“He has been profoundly unhappy in personal life and in aspects of his job, and that has shown,” he said. “He has taken umbrage at every turn. He’s been disdainful of me and my colleagues. It’s hard, especially since I viewed myself as an ally.”

Joel Benenson, a Democratic pollster and strategist, said it would be hard for Newsom to win higher office.

“American voters do have the capacity to forgive. They believe in redemption,” he said. “But while you can come back from an affair, it’s apparent he has crossed the line. He would have to spend too much time explaining alcohol abuse and what he did to his friend’s family. It would come to define him.”

As for Newsom’s future in City Hall, the debate continues.

“I’ve lived through three mayors — I know what it takes to get the job done,” said Supervisor Tom Ammiano. “I’m not calling for him to resign, but I don’t think he should run again. That would be traumatic” for the city.

But Dufty insisted that Newsom is up to the job.

“There’s no question he’s enormously talented,” he said. “The ultimate question is, ‘Is this what he wants to do?’ When it comes to a second term, the commentary is, ‘The only person running against Gavin Newsom is Gavin Newsom himself.’ ”

john.glionna@latimes.com

lee.romney@latimes.com

NEW YORK — Mayor David N. Dinkins, battered by the budget crisis and seeking to project a message of personal accountability, invited ordinary citizens to his office Monday with suggestions on how to better life in the city.

Hundreds of people started lining up before dawn with complaints and ideas–including sending a squad of cowboys and cowgirls through poverty-stricken areas to preach AIDS-awareness and anti-drug messages, offering centralized computer access to municipal information, encouraging volunteerism and sacrificing a day’s pay a year to help the city.

After being pre-screened in front of City Hall, people in line were funneled through a metal detector to chat with the heads of appropriate agencies. A far smaller group met the mayor himself.

Was it a sincere search for innovation or a folksy public relations exercise? “I’d say it was 50-50,” said Michael Attisano, who emerged from the mayor’s office after suggesting a consolidation of the city’s separate housing and transit police forces. “I think he is going to get a lot of good ideas today.”

“Even now, there are those who see this as some sort of a gimmick,” Dinkins said. “It really is a desire to convey to the people of our city that this government really cares about them.”

The mayor’s invitation for ordinary citizens to meet with him came during a major televised address on July 30 that was designed to reassure both the city and the New York State Emergency Financial Control Board, created during the great fiscal crisis of the 1970s. The review board has the power under certain circumstances to seize financial control of the city.

In his speech, the mayor laid out a mixture of money-saving ideas, including ordering the heads of all city agencies, except for the police and fire departments, to give up their chauffeurs.

The mayor announced that he would not accept a pay raise for at least a year and set aside Monday as the day when New Yorkers with concerns and innovative ideas could come to see him.

And come they did. Coreen Brown of Brooklyn, arrived before dawn with a complaint about a sewer problem. When she emerged from the mayor’s office after waiting in line for hours, she admitted that she had broken into tears and Dinkins had given her a tissue.

“I forgot everything I wanted to say. I was going to invite him to my house,” Brown said.

Others remembered to deliver their messages.

Irving Scharf, a store owner from Brooklyn, suggested among other things that the mayor set up a lending-library system of math videotapes so children who miss classes because of illness or those who need extra credit can increase their learning skills.

“I am not here to berate the mayor. I am here to encourage him,” said Thelma Williams of the Bronx, who pushed for increased volunteerism and the sacrifice of a day’s pay by New Yorkers to help the city.

Carlos Foster, a rodeo producer who also lives in the Bronx, arrived wearing cowboy garb and proposed riding into poorer areas of the city with 10 cowboys and four cowgirls to preach against substance abuse and for safe sex.

Hulan Jack Jr., the son of a former Manhattan borough president in the 1960s, suggested putting all city data in central computer depositories for quick access.

Jack said that Dinkins listened and then had a municipal computer expert deliver a 30-second capsule of what already was being done. “Then we talked another minute and a half, and that was it,” he explained after leaving the mayor’s inner office.

The Dinkins invitation to New Yorkers brought out a summer Santa Claus, complete with red suit, and a woman dressed as the Easter Bunny. Police looked on bemusedly, except when Tasia Figueroa arrived with her 11-foot python, Shorty, draped around her neck.

The mayor’s staff, after quick consultation with police, asked that the snake be parked with Figueroa’s fiance while she went into City Hall to voice her municipal license complaint.