Los Angeles Cancels Independent Shelter Audit, Pulls Support for Reform

After pledging independent oversight, officials cancel the only contract that could have delivered it—without explanation.

Six months ago, Los Angeles City Controller Kenneth Mejia publicly pledged an independent audit of Los Angeles Animal Services (LAAS), calling it a vital step toward confronting the city’s deepening animal welfare crisis—marked by overcrowded shelters, surging euthanasia rates, and rising public frustration. He spoke of “the political will and courage” needed to pursue real reform and assured Angelenos that his office had been preparing this audit for two years.

But now, after 2.5 years of buildup—and significant taxpayer expense—the audit has lost its independence. The contract to bring in external expertise has been withdrawn. No explanation has been offered. And the public, once again, is left in the dark.

City Controller Pulls the Rug—Audit Collapses, Transparency Topples, LA’s Animals and Public Trust Left in Chaos

A Transparent Process—Until It Wasn’t

According to multiple internal City sources with direct knowledge of the process—speaking on condition of anonymity to avoid professional retaliation—the Controller’s Office conducted a rigorous, competitive procurement. The Request for Proposals (RFP), officially titled “Evaluation of LA City Animal Shelters and Care” (RAMP ID: 220161), attracted major players in the animal welfare field, including Best Friends LA and Shelter Savvy.

The contract was ultimately awarded to Dr. Dena Mangiamele. Dr. Mangiamele served as LA’s Chief Veterinarian from 1995 to 1999, overseeing 77 staff across six shelters, managing a $4 million budget, and launching the City’s first early-age spay/neuter program. She regularly testified in cruelty cases and represented the department in media.

In 1998, she was named National Shelter Veterinarian of the Year by the American Humane Association and formally commended by both the Los Angeles City Council and California State Senate for her contributions to the City’s animal welfare efforts.

Since then, she has built a national reputation as a forensic veterinary consultant and independent auditor known for unbiased, evidence-based assessments. Her proposal reportedly outscored all others by a wide margin and was widely viewed as a win for impartiality and expertise.

A Sudden Reversal

Then, at the eleventh hour, just as the contract was reportedly being finalized for signatures, the City Attorney’s Office abruptly raised concerns over a potential “conflict of interest.” The reason? Dr. Mangiamele is currently serving as an expert witness in two lawsuits involving dog attacks tied to LAAS adoptions—routine work for professionals in her field. According to sources, these cases are unrelated to shelter operations, outside the scope of the RFP, and involve no confidential City material.

Sources also report that Dr. Mangiamele offered to delay the evaluation until her court involvement concluded—a standard mitigation step, commonly accepted in government contracting to resolve potential conflicts of interest. By refusing Dr. Mangiamele’s reasonable offer to delay the evaluation and instead canceling the contract outright, the Controller’s Office not only dismissed a practical and ethical solution—it effectively squandered 2.5 years of City staff effort, significant taxpayer resources, and the good faith of every candidate who invested time and energy navigating a demanding selection process.

This abrupt reversal has left Los Angeles without the independent audit it promised, while deepening public skepticism about the City’s commitment to transparency, fiscal responsibility, and meaningful reform.

Not Withdrawn, But Hollowed Out

In response to an inquiry from Animal Politics, the Controller’s Office now insists that “the audit has not been withdrawn.” While technically accurate, this statement masks a crucial reality: what was withdrawn was the external evaluation that would have given the audit its integrity, credibility, and subject-matter authority. In effect, the City has chosen to proceed without the very expertise it deemed essential.

Instead of honoring the completed competitive process, the Controller now appears to be shifting toward an entirely internal audit conducted by civil service staff—without third-party oversight or the specialized knowledge required to assess shelter operations, policy failures, or animal care outcomes.

The City response, issued by Dinah Manning, a senior staff member in the Controller’s Office, stated that “the audit has not been withdrawn” and that the Controller’s internal audit division “continues to actively work on the audit.” However, her statement conspicuously avoids any mention of the canceled RFP, the contract award, or the abrupt decision to eliminate independent expert evaluation. The lack of clarity around the shift, the unaddressed conflict-of-interest rationale, and the absence of a public timeline suggest a retreat from meaningful transparency.

The Controller’s carefully worded response leaves core questions unanswered—and reinforces a growing perception that the City may be withdrawing from its earlier commitments under cover of bureaucratic obfuscation.

The Controller’s Office may think it dodged a political problem. But in doing so, it has deepened a systemic one. LAAS remains broken—and the City has signaled it is not interested in fixing it through honest, external scrutiny. This will likely prolong the shelter crisis, further erode faith in city governance, and ensure that meaningful reform—if it comes at all—will arrive only through sustained pressure or litigation.

Does the Conflict Argument Hold Up?

Experts in public ethics and procurement law note that a true conflict of interest must be direct, substantial, and unresolvable to justify contract termination. Federal guidelines and California case law emphasize that only conflicts involving overlapping subject matter or privileged access to internal information typically warrant disqualification.

In this case, sources assert that the perceived conflict was disclosed, tangential at best, and easily mitigated through temporary recusal. The City’s choice to cancel—rather than mitigate—has fueled speculation that discomfort with the audit’s potential findings may have outweighed any genuine legal concern.

A Pattern of Avoidance

This is not the first time the City has sidestepped accountability on animal welfare. Promises to reform LAAS stretch back decades, often ending in bureaucratic gridlock or silent retreat. The system remains overwhelmed, staff demoralized, and the animals—supposedly at the center of reform—continue to bear the cost.

Mejia’s office has repeatedly cited the need for independent oversight. Yet, when such oversight was finally within reach, it was quietly stripped of its independence.

Who Benefits From Silence?

The abrupt cancellation raises a number of urgent questions:

• Who stands to benefit from halting a long-promised independent review of LAAS operations?

• Why was a respected, impartial expert sidelined over a tenuous, mitigable concern?

• What message does this send to professionals who might consider serving the City in similar roles?

If politics—not process—dictated the audit’s demise, it undermines public trust in the very reforms City leaders claim to support.

Angelenos Deserve Answers

To date, the Controller’s Office has not publicly addressed the canceled contract. Angelenos deserve a clear, public explanation. Was this contract withdrawn for legitimate ethical reasons, or was it scrapped to avoid uncomfortable scrutiny? Has the City abandoned plans for an independent evaluation altogether? If not, what is the new timeline—and who will conduct it?

Until these questions are answered plainly and publicly, the promise of transparency remains unfulfilled. And the animals—along with the taxpayers—continue to pay the price.

What Can You Do?

Angelenos—and animal advocates nationwide—have a right to expect transparency, not silence. If you believe the City should reinstate the awarded contract or publicly explain its decision, contact the Controller’s Office and ask:

• Why was the independent evaluation canceled?

• Will it be reinstated?

• What, if anything, comes next?

LA City Controller’s Office

• (213) 978-7200

• controller.mejia@lacity.org

The City Council and Mayor Bass also have a role to play in restoring transparency and public trust. If you believe the abrupt cancellation of this evaluation deserves answers—or if you want the original, independent contract reinstated—contact your City Council representative and the Mayor’s Office:

LA Mayor Karen Bass

• (213) 978-0600

• mayor.helpdesk@lacity.org

City Council Contact Directory

• https://clerk.lacity.gov/elected-officials

Tell your elected officials: reform begins with accountability—not silence. Angelenos expect independent oversight—not another broken promise.

Ed Boks is a former Executive Director of the New York City, City of Los Angeles, and Maricopa County Animal Care & Control Departments, and a former Board Director of the National Animal Control Association. His work has been published in the LA Times, New York Times, Newsweek, Real Clear Policy, Sentient Media, and now on Animal Politics with Ed Boks.

Stay Informed

For more analysis and updates on the evolving landscape of animal welfare policy, visit Animal Politics with Ed Boks.