(The link to the CityWatch article appears below. This was my response sent, but it was not published.)
What Is the Purpose?
A sham is defined as “a thing that is not what it is purported to be.”
Regarding government committees and agencies, that definition raises an important question about the article: What difference is this public body actually supposed to make?
Before asking what difference an agency is making, we first have to understand its purpose and agenda. Was it actually created to make a difference, or was it created primarily to give the public the impression that something would be done?
The Los Angeles Unified School District and its various committees and departments remind me, in many ways, of the City of Los Angeles government. I speak more from my experience with Los Angeles city government than from the school system, but I speak as a former government official and newspaper reporter who has covered government functions and events.
The Human Relations Commission reminds me of the California Civil Rights Department. It also reminds me of the City of Los Angeles Civil and Human Rights Department, and similar agencies at various levels of government.
All of these agencies are supposed to have a purpose and an agenda designed to fulfill some broad, noble public objective, usually defined by municipal ordinances, state civil-rights laws, or other statutory authority.
But the question is: What happens when the machinery of government creates the appearance of enforcement without producing meaningful relief?
The Appearance of Relief
I can give many examples in which government agencies lead the public to expect that they will receive some type of relief. For example, the City of Los Angeles passed a landlord-harassment ordinance. It was reported that there were approximately 10,000 complaints, yet only a handful made it to the police department. If that is an accurate representation of what happened, it raises a serious question about the effectiveness of the system.
The initial problem is that the City Council passed an ordinance that could lead the public to believe that people experiencing harassment would have a meaningful avenue for relief. At the same time, the city’s definition of harassment may be more restrictive than California’s legal standards concerning harassment and temporary restraining orders.
Even if only a fraction of those 10,000 complaints had merit –maybe 100-1,000, wouldn’t investigating a meaningful number of them have demonstrated that the ordinance was actually being enforced?
Instead, it can appear that a governmental enforcement mechanism has been created without sufficient machinery behind it to address the underlying problem.
The Civil and Human Rights System
I have had similar experiences with the City of Los Angeles Civil and Human Rights Department. When you complete its complaint questionnaire, you are led to believe that the department will investigate and that it has authority over matters such as housing discrimination and housing services.
But when I filed a complaint, four things happened.
First, the investigation was extremely limited. Second, much of my complaint was effectively ignored. Third, I was ultimately referred elsewhere. And fourth, even though I gave my permission, the City refused to release copies of the file to the public.
As a result, I, as the tenant who filed the complaint, was unable to see what my landlord was telling the City’s discrimination department.
The landlord operates a rent-controlled building that receives government assistance, including Section 8 and HUD-related assistance. One would think that such circumstances would warrant some degree of public oversight.
At the very least, I should have been able to find out what my own landlord was telling the City about conditions in the building, including allegations concerning accessibility standards, ADA-related issues, and the provision of housing services affecting tenants.
But I could not obtain that information.
The California Civil Rights Department
Then there is the California Civil Rights Department, with which I have had considerable experience over the years. I have filed civil-rights complaints that were repeatedly ignored or rejected. When dealing with these agencies, you also have to be extremely careful about the statute of limitations. That is important because an agency’s handling of a complaint can consume valuable time. If the applicable statute of limitations expires while a person is pursuing an administrative remedy, the person may find that other legal options have become much more difficult or unavailable.
In my experience, the California Civil Rights Department has given me different explanations for rejecting complaints. At one point, I was told that I lacked causation. I then filed additional complaints based on new evidence and was told that I had insufficient evidence. More recently, I was told that the department did not have jurisdiction.
Who Actually Writes the Complaint?
There is another problem that I believe deserves public attention.
When a citizen files an intake with the California Civil Rights Department, the citizen does not simply write the final civil-rights complaint and submit it exactly as written. The department’s process involves an intake and, where appropriate, the preparation of a formal complaint by the department.
That means the agency has substantial control over how the allegations are framed and what ultimately appears in the complaint.
I experienced this firsthand.
During one interview, the employee who was preparing my complaint drafted a version with which I was dissatisfied because, in my view, it left out approximately 75 percent of what I had reported.
I told her that I was not satisfied with the way the complaint had been written. She then asked me to provide a more “concise and complete” statement.
This was after I had already provided more than 25 documents of various lengths containing information relevant to my allegations.
I found that request difficult to understand. If the agency employee is responsible for drafting the complaint, why should the complainant have to do the agency’s job by producing the “concise and complete” statement? Then, the latest excuse they give is that they don’t have jurisdiction over the complaint.
I believe the agency should be capable of reviewing the evidence, understanding the allegations, and accurately presenting the complaint. Numerous times the interviewer misconstrued what I had written. And even after I protested only part of what she had written, she claimed I wanted the complaint dismissed. Six months down the drain.
Even though I had given her probably over 25 documents of various lengths.. And even though I was not the person responsible for drafting the complaint, and yet she wanted me to give her a “concise and complete”statement, as if she was not able to comprehend English, as she is the person who is strictly responsible for drafting the complaint. Why didn’t she come up with a concise and complete statement?
I think that would be her job. But in the end result, the purpose is just to not in any way come close to enforcing any law that such a department has jurisdiction over. their second purpose is to have an agenda, that does everything possible to wear you down, to make you believe that, no matter how many complaints you file, they’re not gonna do anything about whatever their so called purposes.
That’s the agenda of all these agencies, from HUD, the civil rights commission, the civil rights department, the city agencies, no matter who they are, they all have the same agenda, to make sure, you don’t get anywhere with your complaint, that you don’t get any relief.
The Los Angeles Housing Department
The City recently passed an ordinance that prohibits rent controlled building from charging an extra 1% for each utility, a landlord can no longer increase the rent each year by that amount. I have made numerous complaints on this issue since February 2026 and the Housing Department has yet to provide relief or cite the owner who is still charging me the 2% above the legal 3% increase.
Wearing People Down
The result, in my view, is a system that can leave people feeling as though the purpose is not to enforce the law but to avoid getting close to enforcing it.
The second apparent purpose is to create an administrative process that wears people down until they conclude that, regardless of how many complaints they file, nothing is going to happen.
That is the pattern I have experienced with various government agencies, including HUD, civil-rights agencies, the California Civil Rights Department, and City agencies like housing department and the Civil and Human Rights Department.
The common thread, from my perspective, is that the complainant is left fighting the machinery of government rather than receiving meaningful relief.
The Cards Are Stacked Against the Complainant
The cards are stacked against people who file complaints.
Very few people have the resources, time, or determination to pursue a matter all the way through the legal system. Even fewer can afford to hire an attorney.
And even when someone does obtain an attorney, that does not necessarily guarantee a successful outcome.
This creates a system in which the person with the legitimate complaint may be forced to spend enormous amounts of time and money simply trying to get the government to investigate the matter in the first place.
That is why I believe the questions raised by the article about the Los Angeles Unified School District’s Human Relations Commission go far beyond one particular commission.
The larger question is whether government agencies are actually fulfilling the purposes for which they were created—or whether, in some cases, they are creating the appearance of government accountability without providing meaningful accountability.
And that brings us back to the fundamental question:
What does the Human Relations Commission actually do?
If a public agency exists to address a public problem, the public has a right to ask whether it is actually addressing that problem.
Otherwise, we are left with government institutions that exist on paper, policies that exist in ordinances and statutes, complaint forms that invite people to seek help, and a system that can leave those same people wondering why nothing happens after they file.
And so you don’t really have, you know, unless you try to get a jury trial, you probably have very little chance of getting anywhere, whether you have a lawyer or not.
So that’s why we have the Bernie Madoffs, and all the people like him, because of the very system that you’re exposing in the L.A. Unified School District. Google lahousingpermitsandrentadjustmentcommission public file 25-0473 shows shocking los angeles racism
G. Juan Johnson
Resident Los Angeles
( City watch : https://www.citywatchla.com/important-reads/33414-lausd-has-a-human-relations-commission-but-what-does-it-do )
