A new, powerful Citizen Portal experience is ready. Switch now

Council directs controller to evaluate LA Bridges program after disputes over evaluator selection

April 03, 2026 | Los Angeles City, Los Angeles County, California


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Council directs controller to evaluate LA Bridges program after disputes over evaluator selection
After an extended debate over procurement, impartiality and program effectiveness, the Los Angeles City Council on July 27 adopted an amended motion directing the city controller to conduct an evaluation of the LA Bridges program with authority to contract for up to $100,000 in outside assistance and to use city audit resources as appropriate.

The measure arose from a disputed RFP process for an outside evaluator: councilmembers described competing bids and objections that had split the council in previous votes. Several members (including Ridley Thomas) emphasized that city attorney, controller, CAO and CLA reviews had found the staff recommendation defensible. Others, including Councilmember Holden and members concerned about the appearance of bias, urged the controller to lead an independent review to restore confidence.

Controller Rick Tuttle and Jim Armstrong (director of auditing) told the council the controller's office could perform a scoped performance audit, supplementing city audit staff with targeted outside expertise. They described an approach combining internal audit resources with contract help, and committed to returning a status and scope report within 30 days.

Councilmember Wax moved and Councilmember Chick successfully amended the motion to direct the controller to exclude the two prior contending private evaluators from serving as the controller's consultants and to actively solicit academically‑based experts (for instance, from local universities) and other qualified consultants. The council discussed timing, scope and the need to preserve an open RFP process while avoiding a repeat of the prior selection controversy.

After votes on amendments and the main motion, the council adopted the amended 28a motion (vote recorded 12 ayes, 3 noes). The controller's office will prepare an RFP and status report and perform the evaluation with assistance as needed; councilmembers asked for a report in time to inform the next budget cycle.

View the Full Meeting & All Its Details

This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.

Watch full, unedited meeting videos
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
Permanent access to expanding government content
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee