Mayor Karen Bass and the Palisades Fire Report Nobody At City Hall Wanted You to See

We’re on “Holiday Schedule” this week - this is our only planned substantive post for today.

⏱️ 5.5 min

A Scandal That Raises Unavoidable Questions for the Mayor

Some scandals involve officials getting caught red-handed. Others are quieter and possibly more harmful, where the truth is gradually hidden or softened. That seems to be what happened under Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, according to the city’s official report on the Palisades Fire.

The most troubling detail isn’t hidden in a footnote or political spin. The report’s own author refused to support the final version, calling it “highly unprofessional.” When the person responsible for explaining what went wrong won’t sign off, the responsibility goes beyond a department memo or anonymous editor. It falls on the city’s top executive, who is ultimately in charge during a crisis. This scrutiny is unavoidable, especially since Mayor Bass recently announced she is running for a second term, making any leadership failures even more critical.

Instead of providing clear answers, the Palisades Fire has raised a more challenging question: Is City Hall, under Mayor Bass, more concerned with controlling the damage than telling the whole truth?

A Report That Didn’t Survive City Hall

The Los Angeles Times reported that early drafts of the Fire Department’s Palisades Fire report were much more direct about leadership and deployment problems. Those drafts offered explicit opinions on command decisions, preparedness, and adherence to protocol during a fire that destroyed homes and disrupted lives. But as the report was edited, its tone changed. Criticism was softened, details were removed, and failures were described as general “challenges.”

Here is an excerpt from the LA Times…

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.”

When the report was finally released, its author refused to support it, which is unusual in a system that often prefers agreement over honesty. Other news outlets agreed. Spectrum News, using records reviewed by the Times, said that language about leadership failures was softened, direct criticism was watered down, and significant sections were removed. City Hall has not clearly explained who made these changes. The Fire Department would not answer detailed questions, and the mayor’s office said the department wrote and edited the report.

Intentional or Incompetent?

There are really only two possible reasons. Either the report was altered to protect politicians, or the city’s process is so broken that a public-safety document can’t remain honest. Neither option is reassuring.

If the changes were made to protect leaders from blame after a disaster, that’s a serious problem. If they happened because of dysfunction, it shows the system can’t ensure transparency when it’s needed most. Either way, the result is the same: the public got a version of events that the report’s author would not support.

No document explains who ordered each change or exactly why. What is clear is how the report changed. The language became less direct. Criticism was vague. Specific failures were generalized. In the end, the report was changed so much that its author would not sign it. Officials can argue about intent, but what matters is what the public actually received—and what was left out.

Timing is also essential. A troubling report about leadership failures in a major wildfire would have come out just as the mayor was asking voters to trust her again. This doesn’t prove motive, but it does show why the report’s honesty should be questioned.

Where the Buck Actually Stops

This is where Mayor Karen Bass comes in—not as a stereotype, but as Los Angeles’ chief executive. The mayor doesn’t run daily fire operations, but she oversees the system that does. She chooses leaders, sets expectations, and is ultimately responsible for how City Hall responds when a crisis reveals weaknesses. As the city's elected chief executive, Bass is the responsible party here.

This isn’t about politics or party. It’s about whether leaders in Los Angeles are expected to be honest when mistakes happen.

When a major wildfire is followed by a report that loses credibility, the real question isn’t whether the mayor edited a paragraph herself. It’s whether her administration expects honesty or allows confusion when the truth is uncomfortable. So far, the public hasn’t gotten clear answers about why the report changed so much, who made the changes, or why the author’s concerns were ignored. For a city that often talks about transparency and accountability, this silence says a lot.

Why This Matters Beyond One Fire

It might seem like this issue only matters to the neighborhoods affected by the Palisades Fire, but that’s not the case. The real question is whether the mayor of Los Angeles can be trusted to demand honesty from her own government when the facts are hard to face.

That standard is essential for every Angeleno who relies on City Hall, whether the issue is public safety, homelessness, infrastructure, or how tax money is used. Wildfires, earthquakes, floods, and other emergencies will happen again. After-action reports are meant to help us learn from mistakes and avoid repeating them. If uncomfortable truths are hidden, the risk isn’t just rewriting history—it’s making the same mistakes again, with even bigger consequences.

So, Does It Matter?

This matters because Los Angeles voters are now deciding if Mayor Bass should get another term. That choice depends on trust, transparency, and how her administration deals with failure—not just success.

When the author of a report refuses to approve a revised version, the issue isn’t just the fire anymore. The real problem is a system that won’t face its own mistakes. Mayor Bass didn’t start the fire, but as the city’s top executive, she is responsible for explaining what happened next—fully, clearly, and honestly. The real test isn’t whether Los Angeles can survive the last crisis, but whether people can trust their leaders to tell the truth before the next one.

When this controversy is viewed alongside unresolved questions about preparedness and the Keystone-Kops-style handling of the aftermath, it increasingly looks as though Mayor Bass is in way over her skis.

We’ve written a lot on Bass. Go to our archive here, and type Bass in the search field to see it.

Below the paywall, I recorded a five-minute analysis on why, despite this train wreck above, it will be very difficult to displace Bass. And the ironic attack she will make against her likely main opponent, Rick Caruso. Runs about five minutes. Not a paid subscriber yet? Hit the big red button below for a free trial!

Pro Tip: The SALE button offers a significant discount (25%). The free trial does not!

NEW YEAR'S SALE!