
The clerical error that wiped out one ballot measure and may force another
MEASURE FOR MEASURE — Los Angeles County supervisors will meet Tuesday to decide whether voters need to return to the polls next year to clean up a mess the board made.
The predicament has its origins on last November's ballot, when Angelenos approved a sweeping plan to reorganize their powerful county government but — due to what county counsel calls an 'inadvertent administrative error' — also repealed an unrelated 2020 measure guaranteeing a share of county funds go toward anti-incarceration programs.
The charter-related snafu came to light last week at a meeting of the task force created to implement Measure G, the charter amendment written to expand the size of the Board of Supervisors and establish an elected county executive role. Duarte City Councilmember John Fasana announced that, while comparing the Measure G overhaul to an earlier version of the charter, he had discovered that 2020's Measure J had never been added to the charter in the first place — which meant that putting Measure G on the books wiped Measure J away entirely.
'The whole thing is unbelievable, that this actually could have happened,' Fasana told Playbook. 'But it did.'
Fasana and fellow task force member Derek Steele argued during the meeting that their newly established 13-member task force should figure out how to proceed with the Measure J omission before getting into the nitty-gritty of implementing Measure G.
They argue it's possible to add Measure J back into the charter without needing voter approval. Then they want to see a new charter amendment on the ballot next November to rehash parts of Measure G, particularly those related to the elected executive, which are the specific sections that wiped out Measure J and incidentally were the leading reason Fasana and Steele both opposed Measure G.
'If we are going to be rehashing any conversation, I think it is to take in a reexamination of Measure G, which was rushed in the first place, which never was really community-vetted,' said Steele. 'The portion about the county CEO … maybe that part needs to go back before the public and be reexamined.'
Members of the task force who supported Measure G last fall say they worry bringing this error to light — and doing it as a surprise during a public meeting — was a way for its critics to throw a wrench in the implementation process, or even to force a re-vote on Measure G, which passed by only a narrow margin.
'It seemed like this was an attempt to blow the whole thing up, shut it all down,' Marcel Rodarte, the executive director of the California Contract Cities Association and a task force member, told Playbook.
Sara Sadhwani, a professor at Pomona College who also serves on the task force, was also suspicious of the timing. 'I'm not sure who knew what or when they knew it, but clearly Mr. Fasana wanted to drop this bomb on us and use it as an excuse to stop the work of Measure G,' she said.
The next steps will be up for debate tomorrow as the five supervisors meet in downtown LA. Measure G's authors, Supervisors Lindsey Horvath and Janice Hahn, will present a motion directing county officials to explore the board's options, including a 2026 ballot measure that would correct the error without addressing the substance of either measure.
'Now as we move to implement Measure G, it's critical that we codify Measure J first to safeguard those community investments,' Hahn said in a statement. 'One technical error should not invalidate the clear will of the voters.'
NEWS BREAK: San Francisco city government introduces OpenAI chatbot for city services … Trump administration asks appeals court to resume immigration raids in Southern California… The number of homeless people declined 4 percent in LA County in 2025.
Welcome to Ballot Measure Weekly, a special edition of Playbook PM focused on California's lively realm of ballot measure campaigns. Drop us a line at eschultheis@politico.com and wmccarthy@politico.com, or find us on X — @emilyrs and @wrmccart.
TOP OF THE TICKET
A highly subjective ranking of the ballot measures — past and future, certain and possible — getting our attention this week.
1. CalExit (2026): A longshot effort to initiate the process of California leaving the union has failed to reach its signature goal, but organizers insist they will not give up. Chief proponent Marcus Ruiz Evans tells Courthouse News he will refile an initiative in the coming weeks.
2. Ballot language (2025): A proposal from Assemblymember Gail Pellerin to streamline ballot language for local measures will head to its next hearing in the Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee on Tuesday. AB 1512 is part of the committee's 'efforts to continually improve our ballots and make them as clear and navigable as possible for our voters,' Pellerin told Playbook. 'We don't want voter fatigue, we don't want voter confusion.'
3. Local housing authority (2026?): Del Mar last week followed the lead of city councils in nearby Encinitas and Oceanside on a growing list of local officials backing a potential constitutional amendment to give local governments more control over housing and zoning decisions. The amendment, promoted by a group called Our Neighborhood Voices, has not yet been filed with the secretary of state.
4. Voter ID (2026): Assemblymember Carl DeMaio is set this week to officially submit an initiative to require citizenship verification and government-issued identification to vote, according to his organization Reform California. DeMaio says he intends to qualify with a volunteer-driven petition campaign.
5. Great Highway Park (San Francisco, 2024): A popular night market is the latest collateral damage in an ongoing Sunset neighborhood civil war over the creation of an oceanside park via ballot initiative. As district supervisor Joel Engardio faces a recall campaign, vendors have begun pulling out of the market which Engardio brought to the neighborhood in 2023.
6. Prop 36 (2024): Democratic Assemblymember Isaac Bryan told California Black Media that last year's tough-on-crime initiative is a 'war on poor people' after a Voice of San Diego report found arrests resulting from the measure are disproportionately occurring in Black communities. The arrest data bears out a concern raised by social justice groups during last year's campaign.
7. Redistricting (2026?): Gov. Gavin Newsom said on a campaign-style swing through Southern states that Texas Republicans' plans to deliver a mid-decade partisan gerrymander 'made me question that entire program' of nonpartisan redistricting used in California. That process was set by two constitutional amendments promoted by predecessor Arnold Schwarzenegger, 2008's Prop 11 and 2010's Prop 20, that would likely compel Newsom to return to the ballot if he's serious about following through on tit-for-tat threats to redraw the state's U.S. House map.
ON OTHER BALLOTS
A federal judge in Florida blocked some provisions in a recent law placing new restrictions on the state's initiative process, a partial victory for activists who are looking to expand Medicaid and legalize marijuana via the 2026 ballot … Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe signed a measure to repeal Proposition A, an initiative voters approved last November to guarantee paid sick leave …
Elections officials in Michigan approved ballot language for a constitutional amendment that would require a government-issued ID to vote, clearing its backers to begin gathering signatures … The Maine state supreme court upheld the ballot language for a proposed initiative that would require voter ID and tighten absentee voting rules, rejecting a challenge from its proponents that the wording 'misrepresents' their proposal…
And the Democratic governor and Republican state senate leader in Washington state are both backing a plan to invest tax dollars intended for the state's long-term care program into the stock market, a proposal that will appear before voters as a constitutional amendment in November.
I'M JUST A BILL
AFFORDABLE HOUSING BOND (AB 736 / SB 417): The Legislature has approved changes to California's landmark environmental law, but another proposal Newsom endorsed this spring as part of an effort to tackle the state's affordable housing crisis hasn't gone anywhere.
AB 736, a $10 million affordable housing bond proposed by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, passed out of the Assembly in June. At the time, its backers — a coalition of landlords, developers, YIMBY groups, building-trades unions, local governments and elected officials — launched a public pressure campaign to push senators to embrace the proposal so it can reach voters in 2026.
But more than a month later, AB 736 has yet to get a hearing there. Nor has SB 417, a nearly identical bill introduced by state Sen. Christopher Cabaldon.
Cabaldon told Playbook the delay is in large part because senators concerned with housing issues had been preoccupied with amending the California Environmental Quality Act and securing money via budget negotiations. Now that those bills have passed, he expects to see the Senate move forward with the bond proposal after the Legislature's July recess and before this fall's longer break.
'Part of the challenge here always is when you're trying to have a budget fight, simultaneously talking about $10 billion for housing programs,' he said. 'We didn't want to take any of the pressure off of the need to make those investments right now … now that that's done, we can turn our attention to the longer term, which is the housing bond.'
The bond's backers are currently 'doing electoral research' to determine whether they would hope to see it appear on the ballot next June or November, according to Cabaldon, and those considerations will determine when and how to make a big legislative push. He hopes to make enough progress by fall to 'have the discussions that we will need to have with the governor.'
WHATEVER HAPPENED TO ...
PROTECTIONS FOR FARM ANIMALS (2008, 2018): Two California ballot initiatives passed a decade apart have 'been effective in raising prices for American consumers,' the Trump administration claims in a federal lawsuit seeking to overturn them.
The suit alleges three California laws overstep the state's authority to govern egg production, two of which were passed directly by voters. Prop 2, an initiative approved in 2008, created welfare mandates for farm animals such as egg-laying hens. Prop 12, passed 10 years later, introduced specific minimum-space requirements for chickens and other farm animals.
This isn't the first time these ballot measures have faced litigation. Cases challenging the validity of these laws have repeatedly failed, including one brought to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2023. The latest suit, filed in U.S. District Court in central California, will turn on interpretation of a 1970 federal law that the Trump administration says reserves egg-regulating authority for Congress.
'This case seems to be largely a political stunt related to the price of eggs,' said Rebecca Cary, a managing attorney at the Humane Society of the United States, which played a key role in supporting and drafting Prop 2 and Prop 12.
The lawsuit is part of a renewed push by out-of-state Republicans to challenge California animal-rights initiatives that have had an outsized effect on the national agriculture marketplace. On Monday, California's two senators organized 29 of their Democratic colleagues to sign a letter opposing the Food Security and Farm Protection Act, which would override state standards like those enacted by California voters.
'Countless farmers who wanted to take advantage of this market opportunity invested resources and made necessary modifications to be compliant,' read the letter from Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla. 'Federal preemption of these laws would be picking the winners and losers, and would seriously harm farmers who made important investments.'
POSTCARD FROM ...
… EBBETTS PASS FIRE DISTRICT: A rural fire district in the Sierra Nevada mountains is sitting on $750,000 in annual tax revenue it needs to keep its ambulances and fire trucks running, the result of a local parcel tax passed in 2019.
But voters first have to give fire officials permission to spend it.
Measure B, which will go before voters in the Ebbetts Pass Fire Protection District in an all-mail special election on Aug. 24, would let the local government spend revenues above the previously established level. That so-called Gann limit, established by 1979's Prop 4, caps government spending at then-current levels adjusted for inflation and population — with some excess revenue returned to taxpayers.
The Ebbetts Pass Fire Protection District represents only about 7,000 full-time residents along a scenic mountain highway that bills itself as one of the most 'intimate and untamed routes' in the Sierras. But the population can balloon to as many as 25,000 people during peak months, primarily from those who come to enjoy the area's range of outdoor activities. That, says Ebbetts Pass Fire Chief Mike Johnson, makes it crucial to have local ambulances on hand. Unlocking the funds will allow the district to continue staffing its ambulances and fire trucks 24 hours a day.
'We transport about 700 people per year — it's not an earth-shattering number,' Johnson told Playbook. 'But what makes us different from, let's say, the city areas is that our closest hospital … is 35 miles away on country, windy roads.'
Johnson expects Measure B to be a relatively easy sell to voters. After all, it won't raise their taxes, just allow the district to spend the tax revenue it has already received. But he still worries that voters might be taken by the allure of getting a few of their tax dollars back down the line.
'Knowing how tough times have been on everybody and the rising cost of everything,' he said, 'some folks may go, 'Yeah, I'll take whatever tax money I've got coming back to me, I could use that in my own pocket.''
THAT TIME VOTERS ...
… WENT NUCLEAR: Californians have seen ballot measures on a wide range of questions related to nuclear energy and nuclear weapons, including to:
Authorize helium-cooled, barge-mounted nuclear reactors in marinas and order the Public Utilities Commission to develop a radioactive waste storage facility (1975, did not qualify) … Prohibit construction of nuclear power plants and limit the operation of existing plants unless the federal government agrees to take full financial responsibility for any accident that occurs (1976, failed) … Require the governor to send a letter to the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State and all members of Congress proposing that the United States and the Soviet Union halt nuclear weapons production (1982, passed) … Declare California to be a 'nuclear-free zone,' limiting radioactive material within the state and prohibiting direct involvement related to nuclear war (1983, did not qualify) … Block state and local agencies from developing emergency response plans to mitigate the consequences of a serious accident at any of the state's existing nuclear plants (1988, did not qualify) … Stop funding for nuclear weapons and reallocate money toward cooperative agreements to secure, reduce and dismantle nuclear, chemical and biological weapons (2003, did not qualify) … Make it easier for the state to approve new nuclear power plants and repeal the existing process for determining whether nuclear waste storage is adequate (2007, did not qualify) … And set conditions for the operation and expansion of nuclear power plants, including additional legislative oversight and federal approval for the reprocessing of nuclear fuel rods (2013, did not qualify).
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Can a county fire a sheriff behind closed doors? Advocacy group threatens to sue for access
An open government advocacy group is threatening to sue a California county that is preparing to discuss firing its elected sheriff behind closed doors. San Mateo County Sheriff Christina Corpus, who serves one of the wealthiest communities in the country, has faced calls for her removal since an explosive November report from a retired judge found that she likely violated the county's policy on nepotism and conflicting relationships. The report alleged that, by 2024, Corpus had 'relinquished control' of the department to a subordinate. That led to a ballot measure last year that voters passed to empower the county Board of Supervisors to remove her from office, which they voted to do in June. Corpus appealed, leading to the scheduled August evidentiary hearing. As part of the removal proceedings, Corpus' legal team asked that the removal hearing take place behind closed doors. 'The county should decline,' wrote First Amendment Coalition attorney Aaron Field in a letter to the county Board of Supervisors. 'Barring the press and public from the removal hearing as Sheriff Corpus has requested would violate the First Amendment right of access to public proceedings, undermine a panoply of compelling public interests in administering the removal hearing transparently and needlessly shut San Mateo citizens out of a key phase of a process.' The hearing is scheduled to begin Aug. 18 and is expected to last about 10 days. CalMatters originally filed a request to open the June removal hearing to the public, a request that was denied. The First Amendment Coalition is making the same request for the August removal hearing. Corpus' removal — and her fight against it, including unsuccessfully filing for a restraining order to stop the proceedings — has roiled her department and the community for nearly a year. Several cities in her county have given her administration no-confidence votes, and the unions representing both her deputies and her sergeants have called for her removal. A San Mateo County spokesperson said the county had received the First Amendment Coalition's letter and would announce a decision soon. 'The county has consistently expressed its view that this should be a fully transparent process, including having the August appeal hearing for her removal from office be open,' said San Mateo County spokesperson Effie Milionis Verducci. 'However, the sheriff has blocked it.' The sheriff's department is still in turmoil, most recently when Corpus put a San Mateo County sheriff's sergeant on leave. That sergeant had testified extensively in a second county investigation into Corpus. The union representing San Mateo County Sheriff's sergeants objected, alleging the sergeant was put on leave as retaliation for his testimony. Corpus denied that her actions had anything to do with the report in a statement posted to the sheriff's office website. 'His temporary administrative leave is entirely unrelated to any comments or cooperation he may have provided in the Keker report,' Corpus said in the statement. Duara writes for CalMatters, where the article first appeared. Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.


Los Angeles Times
3 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Can a county fire a sheriff behind closed doors? Advocacy group threatens to sue for access
An open government advocacy group is threatening to sue a California county that is preparing to discuss firing its elected sheriff behind closed doors. San Mateo County Sheriff Christina Corpus, who serves one of the wealthiest communities in the country, has faced calls for her removal since an explosive November report from a retired judge found that she likely violated the county's policy on nepotism and conflicting relationships. The report alleged that, by 2024, Corpus had 'relinquished control' of the department to a subordinate. That led to a ballot measure last year that voters passed to empower the county Board of Supervisors to remove her from office, which they voted to do in June. Corpus appealed, leading to the scheduled August evidentiary hearing. As part of the removal proceedings, Corpus' legal team asked that the removal hearing take place behind closed doors. 'The county should decline,' wrote First Amendment Coalition attorney Aaron Field in a letter to the county Board of Supervisors. 'Barring the press and public from the removal hearing as Sheriff Corpus has requested would violate the First Amendment right of access to public proceedings, undermine a panoply of compelling public interests in administering the removal hearing transparently and needlessly shut San Mateo citizens out of a key phase of a process.' The hearing is scheduled to begin Aug. 18 and is expected to last about 10 days. CalMatters originally filed a request to open the June removal hearing to the public, a request that was denied. The First Amendment Coalition is making the same request for the August removal hearing. Corpus' removal — and her fight against it, including unsuccessfully filing for a restraining order to stop the proceedings — has roiled her department and the community for nearly a year. Several cities in her county have given her administration no-confidence votes, and the unions representing both her deputies and her sergeants have called for her removal. A San Mateo County spokesperson said the county had received the First Amendment Coalition's letter and would announce a decision soon. 'The county has consistently expressed its view that this should be a fully transparent process, including having the August appeal hearing for her removal from office be open,' said San Mateo County spokesperson Effie Milionis Verducci. 'However, the sheriff has blocked it.' The sheriff's department is still in turmoil, most recently when Corpus put a San Mateo County sheriff's sergeant on leave. That sergeant had testified extensively in a second county investigation into Corpus. The union representing San Mateo County Sheriff's sergeants objected, alleging the sergeant was put on leave as retaliation for his testimony. Corpus denied that her actions had anything to do with the report in a statement posted to the sheriff's office website. 'His temporary administrative leave is entirely unrelated to any comments or cooperation he may have provided in the Keker report,' Corpus said in the statement. Duara writes for CalMatters, where the article first appeared.


Los Angeles Times
a day ago
- Los Angeles Times
L.A.'s bid to rewrite its City Charter starts off with a spicy leadership battle
Good morning, and welcome to L.A. on the Record — our City Hall newsletter. It's David Zahniser, with an assist from Julia Wick, giving you the latest on city and county government. Here you thought charter reform would be boring. A 13-member citizens commission is just getting started on the painstaking, generally unsexy work of poring through the Los Angeles City Charter, the city's governing document, and coming up with strategies for improving it. Yet already, the commission has had a leadership battle, heard allegations of shady dealings and fielded questions about whether it's been set up to fail. But first, let's back up. Mayor Karen Bass, City Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson and former Council President Paul Krekorian chose a collection of volunteers to serve on the Charter Reform Commission, which is charged with exploring big and small changes to the City Charter. The commission is part of a much larger push for reform sparked by the city's 2022 audio leak scandal and a string of corruption cases involving L.A. officials. The list of potential policy challenges the commission faces is significant. Good government types want the new commission to endorse ranked-choice voting, with Angelenos selecting their elected officials by ranking candidates in numerical order. Advocacy groups want to see a much larger City Council. Some at City Hall want clarity on what to do with elected officials who are accused of wrongdoing but have not been convicted. 'You are not one of those commissions that shows up every few years to fix a few things here or there,' said Raphael Sonenshein, who served nearly 30 years ago as executive director of the city's appointed Charter Reform Commission, while addressing the new commission last week. 'You actually have a bigger responsibility than that.' The real work began on July 16, when the commission took up the question of who should be in charge. Many thought the leadership post would immediately go to Raymond Meza, who had already been serving as the interim chair. Instead, the panel found itself deadlocked. Meza is a high-level staffer at Service Employees International Union Local 721, the powerful public employee union that represents thousands of city workers and has been a big-money spender in support of Bass and many other elected city officials. Meza, who was appointed by Bass earlier this year, picked up five votes. But so did Ted Stein, a real estate developer who has served on an array of city commissions — planning, airport, harbor — but hadn't been on a volunteer city panel in nearly 15 years. Faced with a stalemate, charter commissioners decided to try again a few days later, when they were joined by two additional members. By then, some reform advocates were up in arms over Stein, arguing that he was bringing a record of scandal to the commission. They sent the commissioners news articles pointing out that Stein had, among other things, resigned from the airport commission in 2004 amid two grand jury investigations into whether city officials had tied the awarding of airport contracts to campaign contributions. Stein denied those allegations in 2004, calling them 'false, defamatory and unsubstantiated.' Last week, before the second leadership vote, he shot back at his critics, noting that two law enforcement agencies — the U.S. attorney's office and the L.A. County district attorney's office — declined to pursue charges against him. The Ethics Commission also did not bring a case over his airport commission activities. 'I was forced to protect my good name by having to hire an attorney and having to spend over $200,000 in legal fees [over] something where I had done nothing wrong,' he told his fellow commissioners. The city reimbursed Stein for the vast majority of those legal costs. Stein accused Meza of orchestrating some of the outside criticism — which Meza later denied. And Stein spent so much time defending his record that he had little time to say why he should be elected. Still, the vote was close, with Meza securing seven votes and Stein picking up five. Meza called the showdown 'unfortunate.' L.A. voters, he said, 'want to see the baton passed to a new generation of people.' The 40-year-old Montecito Heights resident made clear that he supports an array of City Charter changes. In an interview, Meza said he's 'definitely in favor' of ranked-choice voting, arguing that it would increase voter turnout. He also supports an increase in the number of City Council members but wouldn't say how many. And he wants to ensure that vacant positions are filled more quickly at City Hall, calling it an issue that 'absolutely needs to be addressed.' That last item has long been a concern for SEIU Local 721, where Meza works as deputy chief of staff. Nevertheless, Meza said he would, to an extent, set aside the wishes of his union during the commission's deliberations. 'On the commission, I am an individual resident of the city,' he said. Stein, for his part, told The Times that he only ran for the leadership post out of concern over the commission's tight timeline. The commission must submit its proposal to the council next spring — a much more aggressive schedule than the one required of two charter reform commissions nearly 30 years ago. Getting through so many complex issues in such a brief period calls for an experienced hand, said Stein, who is 76 and lives in Encino. Stein declined to say where he stands on council expansion and ranked-choice voting. He said he's already moved on from the leadership vote and is ready to dig into the commission's work. Meza, for his part, said he has heard the concerns about the aggressive schedule. But he remains confident the commission will be successful. 'I don't think we have the best conditions,' he said. 'But I do not believe we've been set up to fail. I'm very confident the commissioners will do what's needed to turn in a good product.' — STRICTLY BUSINESS: A group of L.A. business leaders launched a ballot proposal to repeal the city's much-maligned gross receipts tax, saying it would boost the city's economy and lower prices for Angelenos. The mayor and several other officials immediately panned the idea, saying it would deprive the city's yearly budget of $800 million, forcing cuts to police, firefighters and other services. — INCHING FORWARD: Meanwhile, another ballot proposal from the business community — this one backed by airlines and the hotel industry — nudged closer to reality. Interim City Clerk Petty Santos announced that the proposed referendum on the $30-per-hour tourism minimum wage had 'proceeded to the next step,' with officials now examining and verifying petition signatures to determine their validity. — GRIM GPS: The Los Angeles County Fire Department had only one truck stationed west of Lake Avenue in Altadena at a critical moment during the hugely destructive Eaton fire, according to vehicle tracking data analyzed by The Times. By contrast, the agency had dozens of trucks positioned east of Lake. All but one of the deaths attributed to the Eaton fire took place west of Lake. — CHANGE OF PLANS: On Monday, Bass nominated consultant and Community Coalition board member Mary Lee to serve on the five-member Board of Police Commissioners. Two days later, in a brief email, Lee withdrew from consideration. Reached by The Times, Lee cited 'personal reasons' for her decision but did not elaborate. (The mayor's office had nothing to add.) Lee would have replaced former commissioner Maria 'Lou' Calanche, who is running against Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez in the June 2026 election. — SEMPER GOODBYE: The Pentagon announced Monday that the roughly 700 Marines who have been deployed to the city since early June would be withdrawing, a move cheered by Bass and other local leaders who have criticized the military deployment that followed protests over federal immigration raids. About 2,000 National Guard troops remain in the region. — HALTING HEALTHCARE: L.A. County's public health system, which provides care to the region's neediest residents, could soon face brutal budget cuts. The 'Big Beautiful Bill,' enacted by President Trump and the Republican-led Congress, is on track to carve $750 million per year out of the Department of Health Services, which oversees four public hospitals and roughly two dozen clinics. At the Department of Public Health, which is facing its own $200-million cut, top executive Barbara Ferrer said: 'I've never actually seen this much disdain for public health.' — HOMELESS HIRE: The commission that oversees the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority selected Gita O'Neill, a career lawyer in the city attorney's office, to serve as the agency's interim CEO. O'Neill will replace Va Lecia Adams Kellum, who stepped down Friday after more than two years in her post. — THE JURY SPEAKS: The city has been ordered by a jury to pay $48.8 million to a man who has been in a coma since he was hit by a sanitation truck while crossing a street in Encino. The verdict comes as the city struggles with escalating legal payouts — and was larger than any single payout by the city in the last two fiscal years, according to data provided by the city attorney's office. — LOOKING FOR A LIAISON: Back in May, while signing an executive directive to support local film and TV production, L.A.'s mayor was asked whether she planned to appoint a film liaison as the City Hall point person for productions. 'Absolutely,' Bass said during the news conference, adding that she planned to do so within a few days. That was two months ago. Asked this week about the status of that position, Bass spokesperson Clara Karger touted the executive directive and said the position was 'being hired in conjunction with industry leaders.' She did not provide a timeline. That's it for this week! Send your questions, comments and gossip to LAontheRecord@ Did a friend forward you this email? Sign up here to get it in your inbox every Saturday morning.