The author of the Los Angeles Fire Department\u2019s after-action report on the Palisades fire was upset about changes made to the report, without his involvement, that downplayed the failures of city and LAFD leaders in preparing for and fighting the disastrous Jan. 7 fire, according to two sources familiar with the matter.<\/p>\n
The author\u2019s complaints reached Mayor Karen Bass\u2019 office in mid-November, after the LAFD had publicly released the report, said Clara Karger, a spokesperson for Bass.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe Mayor has inquired with Chief Moore about the concerns,\u201d Karger said last week, referring to LAFD Chief Jaime Moore. <\/p>\n
The sources, who requested anonymity to protect their relationships with the LAFD and city officials, said the report by Battalion Chief Kenneth Cook was intended to be a final draft. Cook declined to comment.<\/p>\n
The Times posted an article Saturday<\/a> that analyzed seven drafts of the after-action report, obtained through a public records request. The most significant changes involved the LAFD\u2019s deployment decisions before the fire, as the wind warnings became increasingly dire.<\/p>\n In one instance, LAFD officials removed language saying that the decision to not fully staff up and pre-deploy<\/a> all available crews and engines ahead of the extreme wind forecast \u201cdid not align\u201d with the department\u2019s policy and procedures during red flag days.<\/p>\n Instead, the final report said that the number of engine companies rolled out ahead of the fire \u201cwent above and beyond the standard LAFD pre-deployment matrix.\u201d<\/p>\n The deletions and revisions have drawn criticism from some who questioned the LAFD\u2019s ability to acknowledge its mistakes before and during the blaze \u2014 and to avoid repeating them in the future. <\/p>\n In the months since the fire, residents who lost their homes have expressed outrage over unanswered questions and contradictory information about how top LAFD officials prepared for the dangerous weather forecast and how they handled a smaller New Year\u2019s Day blaze, called the Lachman fire, which rekindled into the massive Palisades fire six days later. <\/p>\n On Saturday, after the report by The Times was published online, City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez issued a statement about the toning down of the after-action report.<\/p>\n \u201cToday\u2019s reporting makes clear that accountability is optional when after-action reports are conducted in-house with oversight by political appointees,\u201d Rodriguez said. \u201cIf these reports are purposefully watered down to cover up failures, it leaves Angelenos, firefighters, and city officials without a full understanding of what happened and what needs to change. After-action reports must be independent to ensure honest assessments in order to avoid repeating disastrous errors and to protect our communities in the future.\u201d<\/p>\n Former interim Fire Chief Ronnie Villanueva, who oversaw the completion of the report before it was made public in October, did not respond to requests for comment. <\/p>\n Karger, the Bass spokesperson, said this month that the report \u201cwas written and edited by the Fire Department.\u201d Bass\u2019 office did not demand changes to the drafts and asked the LAFD to confirm only the accuracy of items such as how the weather and the department\u2019s budget factored into the disaster, Karger said in an email.<\/p>\n The LAFD has refused to answer questions about the revisions and Cook\u2019s concerns, citing an ongoing federal court case. Federal prosecutors have charged a former Palisades resident with setting the Lachman fire.<\/p>\n David Loy, legal director of the First Amendment Coalition, said it\u2019s \u201cdisingenuous\u201d of LAFD officials to cite the investigation as a reason they can\u2019t respond to The Times\u2019 inquiries.<\/p>\n \u201cThere\u2019s nothing about the existence of a federal investigation that prohibits them from commenting,\u201d Loy said. \u201cThey just choose not to comment.\u201d<\/p>\n Three of the seven drafts of the after-action report obtained by The Times are marked with dates: Two versions are dated Aug. 25, and there is a draft from Oct. 6, two days before the LAFD released the final report to the public<\/a>.<\/p>\n Some drafts of the after-action report described an on-duty LAFD captain calling Fire Station 23 in the Palisades on Jan. 7 to report that \u201cthe Lachman fire started up again,\u201d indicating the captain\u2019s belief that the Palisades fire was caused by a reignition of the earlier blaze. <\/p>\n The reference was deleted in one draft, then restored in the public version, which contains only a brief mention of the Lachman fire. Some have said that the after-action report\u2019s failure to thoroughly examine the Lachman fire reignition was designed to shield LAFD leadership and the Bass administration from criticism and accountability<\/a>.<\/p>\n Weeks after the report\u2019s release, The Times reported that a battalion chief <\/a>ordered firefighters to roll up their hoses and leave the burn area on Jan. 2, even though they had complained that the ground was still smoldering and rocks remained hot to the touch. Another battalion chief assigned to the LAFD\u2019s risk management section knew about the complaints for months, but the department kept that information out<\/a> of the after-action report.<\/p>\n After The Times\u2019 report, Bass asked Villanueva to \u201cthoroughly investigate\u201d<\/a> the LAFD\u2019s missteps in putting out the Lachman fire.<\/p>\n