Political Silly Season in Los Angeles
A Recall Attempt, a Demotion of the Fire Chief, and Opportunistic Political Positions That Make Absolutely Zero Logical Sense
A group, comprised of people all from outside Los Angeles, has organized a recall campaign against Los Angeles
. Now, to be clear, one has a constitutional right to recall. However, file this under the “just because you have the constitutional right to do something, doesn’t mean you should” category.1Under the circumstances, this is an incredibly selfish move. It is pure political opportunism that will divide a grieving city and do nothing to help any Palisades Fire victims get back their homes and businesses. Instead, it will only further deplete the city’s already burdened resources.
For some context, Los Angeles once recalled its Mayor, when voters recalled Mayor Frank Shaw in 1938.
Shaw attempted to have several of his political opponents murdered including Clifton’s Cafeteria owner Clifford Clinton and former LAPD Chief and private detective Harry Raymond.
The bomb at Clinton’s home in Loz Feliz detonated but fortunately, no one was home at the time. The car bomb in Raymond’s car detonated when he turned the key in the ignition but Raymond miraculously survived.
As it turns out, the LAPD (likely on Mayor Shaw’s orders) had been keeping surveillance on Raymond and were secretly wiretapping him while someone planted a bomb in his car. Two LAPD officers went to prison for attempted murder and the Chief was forced to resign from office.
Obtaining evidence for an indictment against Shaw proved difficult as he had effectively put his brother, who later went to prison himself for unrelated felonies, in charge of the police department. But all the unearthing of the scandals had an impact.
In 1938, it had become clear to Angelenos that they had, in the words of
in America is ruled by gangsters now, “chosen a set of leaders who [were] deeply immoral, and who [could not] be expected to obey any norms of common decency.”Having seen enough, Angelenos recalled Shaw from office.2
Perhaps it is unsurprising that when Bertrand Russell, arguably Britain’s greatest liberal philosopher, moved to Los Angeles to teach at UCLA the very next year, he referred to Los Angeles as a “nasty little town.”3
In any event, nothing that has occurred in the past two months even comes close to matching a Frank Shaw level of offense.4
In fact, by all metrics, the recovery and rebuilding has proceeded in record time. As of today, all water and power has been restored to the Palisades, the EPA finished its toxic waste cleanup in 28 days (when 90 days was the minimum time initially provided), and over 100 lots have been completely cleared of debris. The city continues to be pro-active in providing recovery resources.
Karen Bass critics claim any leader in charge should pay the price for the Palisades Fire. However, this doesn’t have any historical precedent either. When Bel Air burned down during Mayor Sam Yorty’s first year in office in 1961, he was not subject to a recall effort. In fact, he was subsequently re-elected - twice.5
But this is only one aspect of the political silly season.
On February 21, Mayor Bass demoted Los Angeles Fire Department Chief Kristine Crowley.6 The reasons that Mayor Bass gave for Chief Crowley’s demotion were quite straightforward.
Chief Crowley refused to commission an after-action report as requested by the Los Angeles City Fire Commission.
On the morning of the fires, she sent over 1,000 firefighters home rather than keep them on duty.
While I had not wanted to see Chief Crowley lose her job as fire chief, I think her demotion is well warranted under the circumstances.7
Let’s start with the first reason given for her demotion. Ordering an after-action report on a major wildfire in its immediate aftermath is a basic part of one’s job as fire chief.
An after-action report is conducted for the purposes of (1) determining how and when the fire started; (2) assessing what fire mitigation and prevention tools worked; (3) assessing which fire mitigation and prevention tools failed; (4) figuring out why the LAFD’s response on January 7th was insufficient; and (5) planning changes to future wildfire responses.
In the aftermath of the 1961 Bel Air Fire, a comprehensive report was issued by the Los Angeles Fire Department. That report was not a document that sought to find civil liability, criminal liability, or even political liability. It was instead a document that explained how the fire spread as quickly as it did, why containment efforts were not sufficient, and what needed to be done to protect Bel Air in the future.
For the most part, the recommendations were followed and while the neighborhood remains a high fire severity zone, it has largely been protected since 1961. During the firestorms this year, the Sepulveda Fire broke out on the Bel Air side of the 405 freeway. The LAFD extinguished it without any property losses at all.
In 1978, the Mandeville Canyon section of Brentwood burnt to the ground entirely. This year, when the Palisades Fire threatened it, LAFD was able to stop the fire and saved all but one home in the canyon.
In both of these 2025 fires, the LAFD used post-fire preparations built after 1961 and 1978 to successfully combat the fires.
Learning from past experiences is the only way to prevent future destruction.
In 1933, the Griffith Park Fire killed 29 people and remains LA’s deadliest fire. In 2025, a brush fire that started on the Griffith Park side of the 101 freeway was put out almost immediately.
In 1954, 1959, and 1979, wildfires burnt down homes in the Laurel Canyon neighborhood.
In 2025, the Sunset Fire, which broke out one night after the Palisades Fire started, once more threatened Laurel Canyon. If uncontained, it could have burned down large parts of Hollywood - the Hollywood Bowl, Dolby Theater, Walk of Fame, and Magic Castle were all in the mandatory evacuation zone.
In a dramatic battle, the Los Angeles Fire Department put out the Sunset Fire without any property losses whatsoever. Had the fire department not learned lessons from the past, this probably would not have occurred. The after-action report is thus vital for future firefighting efforts.
Since the fires first broke out, there has been no shortage of finger pointing and shouting from critics, often with inaccurate information. However, an after-action report is critical to knowing what problems existed and why.
For example, an after-action report would get to the bottom of the fire hydrant issue. On February 12th, KCAL News reported that over 1,350 fire hydrants across the city were in need of repair (out of more than 66,000). In the Pacific Palisades, there were 11 fire hydrants that were in need of repair (one of which was in an area the fire did not reach) out of more than 5,000.
But the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power claims that they did not receive this list of fire hydrants in need of repair until February 14th. Clearly, there is a communications problem. An after-action report could identify that communications problem and fix it.
Chief Crowley has not denied that she refused to conduct an after-action report. Instead, she came to the LA City Council this week to ask for her firing to be overturned and claimed that the state would be better off to conduct the report alleging that the city lacks the resources to conduct one.
That’s ridiculous. The city has the resources to conduct an after-action report. The fact that a state agency is conducting a report is not a reason for the city to not conduct one. If anything, both agencies might pick up on some factors that the other misses.
As to the second reason why Mayor Bass removed Chief Crowley, while I have some trepidation about it, I think it’s a sufficient reason as well. There’s a difference between a weather warning and an actual weather event in progress.
There were no severe wind warnings until the evening of January 6th. But even then, weather warnings are still only weather predictions, which can often be wrong.
Despite what many overly paid pundits, media celebrities, and right wing activists are claiming, wildfires are not like hurricanes. They cannot be tracked before they strike. Instead, they operate more like earthquakes, which are not predictable.8 A fire weather warning doesn’t mean that there will be a fire.
Granted, there is no such thing as earthquake weather. There are conditions in which a wildfire is more likely to break out. But even when there are fire conditions, that doesn’t mean a wildfire will occur. January is not part of the traditional fire season in Southern California either.
While it would not have made sense to keep firefighters on overtime before January 7th simply because of a high wind warning (running up an overtime bill for no reason and exhausting the firefighters), it makes little sense to have ordered them home on the day of the fire.
On the morning of January 7th (the day that the Palisades Fire broke out), the weather predictions were no longer predictions. They were an actuality. Even if no wildfire had broken out on that day, there almost certainly would have been additional events requiring the assistance of firefighters.
On Tuesday, Chief Crowley claimed at the LA City Council that she sent the firefighters home because the Los Angeles Fire Department reportedly lacked the apparatus to put them on.
This is also ridiculous. First, those firefighters were brought back to duty after the fires began. Second, even the LA Times has pointed out that there were dozens of additional fire engines that could have been sent to the Pacific Palisades.
There are three other issues that make me feel the demotion was well-warranted based upon Chief Crowley’s own words:
She has faulted the city for eliminating 61 civilian positions for what happened - the positions were vacant. The city bent over backwards to not lay off any employees during the last budget. If these positions were that important, why did she, as the chief, allow 61 to remain vacant?
If over 1000 firefighters in her department did not have access to working engines (a claim which seems disproven by the department’s subsequent response), how did she allow that many engines to fall into disrepair? This did not happen overnight. And that many engines being out of repair is something she should have brought directly to the Council’s attention at the last budget. She didn’t.
She has not denied that she did not warn the Mayor about the fire warning.
Fortunately, silly season did not prevail at the LA City Council, failing on a 13-2 vote on Tuesday.
However, the demotion of Chief Crowley has still triggered the Bass critics, who were outraged.
The reaction though to the demotion of Chief Crowley was fast and furious. It triggered a deluge of emotions from Bass critics. Washed up actor and noted anti-Semite Mel Gibson, raged against it, calling it “One of the most pathetic and despicable things I’ve seen.”
Echoing Gibson, former LA Mayoral candidate and billionaire shopping center developer Rick Caruso tweeted the following:
Chief Crowley served Los Angeles well and spoke honestly about the severe and profoundly ill-conceived budget cuts the Bass administration made to the LAFD. That courage to speak the truth was brave, and I admire her. The mayor’s decision to ignore the warnings and leave the city was hers alone.9
The tweet makes me seriously question Caruso’s competence and judgment. Because in addition to the offenses clearly warranting termination, Caruso had taken a position less than a week earlier that made Chief Crowley responsible for the Palisades Fire.
This is in regards to her decision-making regarding pre-deployments of fire engines and firefighters to different wildfire-prone areas of the city.
In February, the LA Times reported that ten fire engines could have been pre-deployed to the Pacific Palisades but were not and this may have made a significant difference in the fire. The LA Times even conceded the following in this article:
Soon after the fire, in defending her department’s decision not to order a large pre-deployment, Crowley blamed budget cuts and a backlog of engines in ill repair. But The Times has reported that the department had more than enough working engines to send dozens of extra rigs to the Palisades and elsewhere.
Would those ten fire engines being pre-deployed have made the difference?
I honestly don’t know. While I tend to doubt it, I am open to persuasion.
Admittedly, I have conflicting biases that alternately want this to be true and false. On the one hand, I didn’t want to see Chief Crowley fail at her job so I want it to be false. On the other hand, I want it to be true because then I have someone to blame for the terrible misfortune that happened to all my friends in the Pacific Palisades and I can also feel safer from the threat of future wildfires.
Either way, it’s far from determined as to whether this would have made a significant impact.10
But Rick Caruso feels differently. He does believe that the failure to pre-deploy ten engines to the Pacific Palisades was a decisive factor.
Upon reading the news, Caruso tweeted the following:
Former fire chiefs say pre-deployment could have mitigated the toll in the Palisades” It’s becoming more and more clear that the fires could have been prevented or contained quicker and countless homes and lives could have been saved. Outrageous. Why aren’t the Mayor and Fire Chief giving us answers? We need answers and accountability from the Mayor and the Fire Chief - now.11
And his rage tweeting reflects an opinion that many have adopted. However, a reality check is needed.
It’s up to the Fire Chief to know where pre-deployments of fire engines should be sent in anticipation of a wildfire. Our elected officials don’t have the kind of expertise to make those decisions. And they are not elected to make those decisions. In fact, they should not be micro-managing their fire departments or attempting to do the Fire Chief’s job.
If a pre-deployment of ten fire engines would have saved the Pacific Palisades or spared significant parts of it, and Chief Crowley failed to make that pre-deployment, then she is to blame for what occurred.
And if that is the case, why wouldn’t Caruso remove her as the Fire Chief? Why should an irresponsible Fire Chief whose failure to properly pre-deploy to the Pacific Palisades, as any other competent Fire Chief would have done, and allowed half a neighborhood to burn down remain on the job?
It doesn’t add up.
It’s as equally coherent as Academy Awards host Conan O’Brien performing a full song and dance number at the show to declare that he “won’t waste time.”12
I don’t think Caruso or the other unhinged lunatics are going for the same comedic effect. And unlike O’Brien, their performance is really not funny. It’s sadly just more rank political opportunism at a time when it’s desperately not needed.
The author of this article is an attorney licensed to practice in the State of California and the District of Columbia. This article and all of the works on this Substack page are statements of the opinions of the author, only, and do not constitute legal advice; they are not intended to be relied upon by any individual or entity in any transaction or other legal matter, past, pending, or future. A paid subscription to this Substack page supports the author’s scholarship and provides access to research that the author has compiled, but does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The author does not accept unsolicited requests for legal advice or representation, and this Substack page is not intended as legal advertising. The opinions expressed on this Substack page reflect the personal views of the author only.
In one final master stroke of pure assholery, Shaw, in need of some volunteers against the recall, promised some local boys that if they volunteered for him, he would reward them with free candy. The boys eagerly volunteered for him. But after they finished their volunteer work, he opted to not give them the candy after all.
https://russell-homes.mcmaster.ca/home/america1
Nor has anything occurred that comes close to the reasons that voters in Alameda and San Francisco Counties recently recalled elected officials (District Attorneys who refused to prosecute violent criminals, school board members engaging in open racism, a Mayor under federal indictment).
Many of these Bass critics capitalized on the fact that she happened to be in Ghana on a Presidential mission at the time that the fires broke out. Upon learning the news, she immediately flew back to Los Angeles, returning in less than 24 hours.
If she hadn’t immediately flown back upon learning of what was transpiring or if she had been dishonest about where she was, people would be rightfully upset with her. They would wonder whether she cared or question her honesty.
But that’s not what happened. The LA Times continually harps on the fact that she was at a cocktail party at the US Embassy when the fire broke out.
However, there’s a significant difference between being at an event when you learn of something awful requiring your attention versus learning of something awful requiring your attention and choosing to ignore it while you attend an event. Bad timing is not the same thing as intentional neglect. Pretending otherwise seems to be politically opportunist and a silly attack.
She technically hasn’t been fired as she remains a firefighter with the Los Angeles Fire Department, just at a lower rank than she previously held.
Here, I have to point out her sexual orientation. Many on the right seemed overjoyed by the Palisades Fire and its destructiveness because Chief Crowley is a lesbian and this allowed them to further their crusade against both gay people and “DEI”. I am admittedly biased towards my lesbian sister and I did not want her to fail for that reason. While one’s sexual orientation should never be a factor in an employment decision, her visibility as an out lesbian was important for the LGBT community. Her position having been honestly earned, it was fine to celebrate her as the first openly LGBT fire chief. And I am sad that the situation has come to this. However, as I said, one’s sexual orientation should never be a factor in an employment decision and she could not remain as LAFD Chief under these circumstances.
There have been some scientific research efforts to develop earthquake predictors. But I don’t think any have been developed with any precision to truly predict an earthquake.
https://x.com/RickCarusoLA/status/1893019169916067872
An after-action report would be very helpful in this situation. It seems that the Pacific Palisades would be a natural place to pre-deploy engines in case of wildfires. It also seems like engines would be pre-deployed somewhere in the Highlands where there is only one road in or out and where the nearest fire station is at the bottom of the hill.
Before I fault Chief Crowley though, I would like to know:
Are there traditional indications for pre-deployment that were absent this time around? (The winds faced were unprecedented, perhaps this wildfire acted differently in that regard as well).
Did she believe that the Los Angeles County Fire Department was pre-deployed in roughly the same area, thus keeping it covered, and was there resulting mis-communication with the Los Angeles County Fire Department?
Did Chief Crowley actually order pre-deployment but did an underling not carry out the order or mis-communicate?
Since she refused to order an after-action report, we don’t yet know.
https://x.com/RickCarusoLA/status/1891225110834499862