Zach Sokoloff is not the answer for Los Angeles City Controller – Daily News
Los Angeles voters will decide the next city controller in an election next week, with challenger Zach Sokoloff seeking to unseat incumbent Kenneth Mejia. The race has become a referendum on the effectiveness of the Controller’s Office, with Sokoloff framing his campaign around allegations of underperformance, ideological bias, and misconduct by Mejia. Meanwhile, Mejia has defended his record, citing resource constraints and political opposition as obstacles to his work.
Why the Race Matters
The Controller’s Office is responsible for overseeing Los Angeles’ $14.5 billion budget, auditing city agencies, and ensuring financial accountability. Sokoloff has pointed to a sharp decline in audits—from an average of 12 per year under Mejia’s predecessor to just 11 in Mejia’s first term—as evidence of neglect. He also highlights persistent challenges in the city, including a budget deficit fluctuating between hundreds of millions and a billion dollars, a homelessness crisis with over $3 billion spent in the last four years without measurable results, and crumbling infrastructure with potholes and broken sidewalks taking years to repair.
Mejia, however, argues that his office has been systematically underfunded and understaffed. He notes that his predecessor had more auditors—sometimes double or triple the number—and that his budget for audits and fraud investigations was cut by nearly 25% early in his term. Staffing in the office has dropped from 289 in 2018 to just 140 budgeted for the 2027 fiscal year, a trend that predates his tenure. Mejia also disputes Sokoloff’s claim that he has failed to audit affordable housing programs, stating that his office has conducted required audits as mandated by Proposition HHH.
Sokoloff’s campaign has centered on attacking Mejia’s record, including allegations of ideological bias in audits—particularly targeting the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD)—and misconduct claims involving sexual harassment and a toxic work environment. Mejia has denied the misconduct allegations, attributing them to two disgruntled former employees who were let go for not meeting job demands. He also rejects Sokoloff’s characterization of his audits as politically motivated, though he acknowledges that his office has faced resistance from city officials.
What Could Happen Next
If elected, Sokoloff may prioritize expanding audits and holding city departments accountable for financial mismanagement, though his proposals remain vague. He has suggested that performing well in office could earn him greater trust—and potentially more resources—but analysts expect that political resistance to oversight will persist. Mejia, if reelected, could continue to push for budget increases and staffing adjustments, though his ability to secure them may depend on broader city politics.
A possible next step for either candidate would be to clarify their positions on specific issues, such as LAPD liabilities, which have contributed to the city’s budget deficit. Mejia has proposed tying a portion of these liabilities to the department’s budget as an incentive for better financial management, while Sokoloff has only offered general statements about holding departments accountable without concrete plans.
Frequently Asked Questions
[Question 1]
How many audits has Kenneth Mejia conducted compared to his predecessor?
Mejia has conducted 11 audits in his first term, while his predecessor averaged 12 audits per year for nine straight years, totaling 108 audits.
[Question 2]
What are the main criticisms Sokoloff has leveled against Mejia?
Sokoloff has accused Mejia of conducting fewer audits than his predecessor, alleging ideological bias in targeting the LAPD, and pointing to misconduct allegations involving sexual harassment and a toxic work environment. He also claims Mejia has failed to audit affordable housing programs as required by Proposition HHH, though Mejia’s office disputes this.
[Question 3]
How has the Controller’s Office been affected by budget cuts?
Mejia has stated that his office’s budget for audits and fraud investigations was cut by nearly 25% early in his term, and staffing has dropped from 289 employees in 2018 to just 140 budgeted for the 2027 fiscal year.
With both candidates offering differing visions for the Controller’s Office, how do you think Los Angeles voters should weigh accountability against the reality of limited resources?