Former Los Angeles Councilmember Kevin de León is facing an ethics fine of $18,750. The fine stems from his involvement in city council decisions where he had a financial interest and his failure to disclose significant income.
De León admitted to four counts of making decisions that benefited organizations from which he received income, as well as one count of not disclosing that income. According to a report from the L.A. City Ethics Commission, he voted on three city council matters related to the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and one that benefited USC. These votes occurred less than a year after he received over $500 from each entity, violating state law requiring elected officials to disclose such income before taking office.
Specifically, De León voted on November 25, 2020, for the historical designation of the King Edward Hotel owned by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. He also voted for a city lease of the foundation-owned Retan Hotel on April 22, 2021, and again on May 4, 2021. The ethics report noted that he failed to disclose over $109,000 in income from the foundation before assuming office.
In addition to his ties with the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, De León had a consulting agreement with the Healthy Housing Foundation, a division of the same organization, shortly after being elected in March 2020. His financial relationship with USC also raised concerns. After receiving $155,000 from USC as an independent contractor, he voted in June 2021 to approve a budget allocation of $1 million to the USC Keck School of Medicine.
De León took office in October 2020 and filed a financial disclosure form the following month. However, he did not list the AIDS Healthcare Foundation or its Healthy Housing Foundation as income sources. An amended form filed in December 2020 still omitted this income, which the ethics commission deemed a serious violation.
While determining the fine, the ethics commission recognized that De León cooperated with the investigation and had no prior violations. However, they noted that his actions indicated a troubling pattern of behavior.
De León’s spokesperson emphasized that the case revolves around disclosure rather than personal gain, arguing that the decisions made during this time provided critical services during the pandemic. The spokesperson stated that if De León had been advised to recuse himself, he would have done so, and the outcomes would have remained unchanged.
The story highlights broader concerns about ethics in local government, especially as De León’s financial ties to influential organizations have raised questions about conflicts of interest. As these issues unfold, they reflect ongoing scrutiny of political practices in Los Angeles.