Photos by Ariel Zambelich/Wired
Tara Parker-Pope speaks about Ask Well.
Photos by Ariel Zambelich/Wired
SAN DIEGO (Reuters) – The former child actor who was the voice of Charlie Brown in the 1960s “Peanuts” animated television specials pleaded not guilty on Wednesday to charges he threatened his girlfriend and a surgeon who carried out her breast enhancement surgery.
Peter Robbins, 56, from Oceanside, California, pleaded not guilty in San Diego Superior Court to two counts of stalking and 10 counts of criminal threats. If convicted, he could face up to nine years in prison, Deputy District Attorney Elizabeth McClutchey said.
Robbins was arrested on Sunday on outstanding warrants by U.S. Customs officers at the San Ysidro port of entry as he returned to San Diego from Mexico. He remains in jail.
McClutchey said on December 31 Robbins threatened Dr. Lori Saltz, the plastic surgeon he paid to perform breast enhancement surgery on his girlfriend, Shawna Kern.
The prosecution also alleged Robbins left several threatening phone messages for Kern, saying in one, “You better hide Shawna, I’m coming for you … and I’m going to kill you.”
Robbins allegedly threatened to kill a police sergeant who arrested him on January 13 after he refused to pay a restaurant bill at the San Diego hotel where he was staying.
Robbins was released on $ 50,000 bond the following day and given a January 28 court date.
McClutchey urged Judge David Szumowski to keep Robbins’ bail set at $ 550,000 because Kern and Saltz believed Robbins was a “desperate man” and “had nothing to lose.”
Defense attorney Marc Kohnen said the bail was excessive because Robbins had no criminal record and had never been in trouble with the law.
Robbins was 9 years old in 1965 when he became the voice of the world-weary yet optimistic title character of “A Charlie Brown Christmas,” the first of many animated TV specials based on the popular “Peanuts” comic strip by Charles Schulz.
With its jazz-inflected music score and a storyline involving Charlie Brown’s search for the true meaning of Christmas in a season corrupted by commercialism, it became a holiday TV classic.
The actor went on to voice Charlie Brown in “It’s the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown,” “You’re In Love, Charlie Brown” and “A Boy Named Charlie Brown,” which aired in the 1960s. He was replaced in later versions of the animated specials.
(Reporting by Marty Graham; Writing by Alex Dobuzinskis; Editing by Steve Gorman and Gunna Dickson)
TV News Headlines – Yahoo! News
Picture a tennis player in the moment he scores a critical point and wins a tournament. Now picture his opponent in the instant he loses the point that narrowly cost him the title. Can you tell one facial expression from the other, the look of defeat from the face of victory?
Try your hand at the images below, of professional tennis players at competitive tournaments. All were included in a new study that suggests that the more intense an emotion, the harder it is to distinguish it in a facial expression.
(Photos: Reuters/ASAP, Provided by Princeton University)
The researchers found that when overwhelming feelings set in, the subtle cues that convey emotion are lost, and facial expressions tend to blur. The face of joy and celebration often appears no different from the look of grief and devastation. Winning looks like losing. Pain resembles pleasure.
But that is not the case when it comes to body language. In fact, the new study found, people are better able to identify extreme emotions by reading body language than by looking solely at facial expressions. But even though we pick up on cues from the neck down to interpret emotion, we instinctively assume that it is the face that tells us everything, said Hillel Aviezer, a psychologist who carried out the new research with colleagues at Princeton University.
“When emotions run high, the face becomes more malleable: it’s not clear if there’s positivity or negativity going on there,” he said. “People have this illusion that they’re reading all this information in the face. We found that the face is ambiguous in these situations and the body is critical.”
Dr. Aviezer and his colleagues, who published their work in the journal Science, carried out four experiments in which subjects were asked to identify emotions by looking at photographs of people in various situations. In some cases, the subjects were shown facial expressions alone. In others, they looked at body language, either alone or in combination with faces. The researchers chose photographs taken in moments when emotions were running high – as professional tennis players celebrated or agonized, as loved ones grieved at funerals, as needles punctured skin during painful body piercings.
According to classic behavioral theories, facial expressions are universal indicators of mood and emotion. So the more intense a particular emotion, the easier it should be to identify in the face. But the study showed the exact opposite. As emotions peaked in intensity, expressions became distorted, similar to the way cranking up the volume on a stereo makes the music unrecognizable.
“When emotions are extremely high, it’s as if the speakers are blaring and the signal is degraded,” said Dr. Aviezer, who is now at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. “When the volume is that high, it’s hard to tell what song is playing.”
In one experiment, three groups of 15 people were shown photographs of professional tennis players winning and losing points in critical matches. When the subjects were shown the players’ expressions alone — separated from their bodies — they correctly identified their emotion only half of the time, which was no better than chance. When they looked at images of just the body with the face removed — or the body with the face intact — they were far more accurate at identifying emotions. Yet when asked, 80 percent said they were relying on the facial expressions alone. Twenty percent said they were going by body and facial cues together, and not a single one said they were looking only for gestures from the neck down.
Then, the researchers scrambled the photos, mixing faces and bodies together. The upset faces of players were randomly spliced onto the bodies of celebrating players, and vice versa.
When asked to judge the emotions, the subjects answered according to the body language. The facial expression did not seem to matter. If a losing face was spliced onto a celebrating body, the subjects tended to guess victory and jubilation. If they were looking at the face of an exuberant player placed on the body of an anguished player, the subjects guessed defeat and disappointment.
Although they were not aware of it, the subjects were clearly looking at body language, Dr. Aviezer said. Clenched fists, for example, suggested victory and celebration, while open or outstretched hands indicated a player’s disappointment.
In another experiment, the researchers looked at four other emotional “peaks.” For pain, they used the faces of men and women undergoing piercings. Grief was captured in images of mourners at a funeral. For joy, they used images of people on the reality television show “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition,” capturing their impassioned faces at the very moment they were shown their beautiful, brand new homes. And for pleasure, they went with a rather risqué option: images from an erotic Web site that showed faces at the height of orgasm.
Once again, the subjects could not correctly guess the emotions by looking at facial expressions alone. In fact, they were more likely to interpret “positive” faces as being “negative” more than the actual negative ones. When faces showing pleasure were spliced onto the body of someone in pain, for example, the subjects relied on body language and were often unaware that the facial expression was conveying the opposite emotion.
“There’s this point on ‘Extreme Makeover’ where people see their new house for the first time and the camera is on their face, so we have these wonderful photos of their expressions,” Dr. Aviezer said. “At that moment, they look like the most miserable people in the world. For a few seconds, it’s as if they are seeing their house burn down. They don’t look like you would expect.”
The researchers noted that they were not suggesting that facial expressions never indicate specific feelings – only that when the emotion is intense and at its peak, for those first few seconds, the expression is ambiguous. Dr. Aviezer said the facial musculature simply might not be suited for accurately conveying extremely intense feelings – in part because in the real world, so much of that is conveyed through situational context.
And this may not be limited to facial cues.
“Consider intense vocal expressions of grief versus joy or pleasure versus pain,” the researchers wrote in their paper. For example, imagine sitting in a coffee shop and hearing someone behind you shriek. Is it immediately obvious whether the emotion is a positive or negative one?
“When people are experiencing a very high level of excitation,” Dr. Aviezer said, “then we see this overlap in expressions.”
President Obama is tapping Mary Jo White, a former United States attorney turned white-collar defense lawyer, to be the next chairwoman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, according to the White House.
Mr. Obama is set to announce the nomination at the White House on Thursday afternoon at 2:30. As part of the event, the White House will also renominate Richard Cordray to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a role he has held for the last year under a recess appointment.
In its choice of Ms. White and Mr. Cordray, the White House is sending a signal about the importance of holding Wall Street accountable for wrongdoing. Both are former prosecutors.
Regulatory chiefs are often market experts or academics. But Ms. White, now a partner at Debevoise & Plimpton, spent nearly a decade as United States attorney in New York, the first woman named to this post. Among her prominent cases, she oversaw the prosecution of the mafia boss John Gotti as well as the people responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
As the attorney general of Ohio, Mr. Cordray made a name for himself suing Wall Street companies in the wake of the financial crisis. He undertook a series of prominent lawsuits against big names in the finance world, including Bank of America and the American International Group.
The White House expects Ms. White and Mr. Cordray to draw on their prosecutorial backgrounds while carrying out a broad regulatory agenda under the Dodd-Frank Act. Congress enacted the law, which mandates a regulatory overhaul, in response to the 2008 financial crisis.
“The president will name two individuals to serve in top enforcement roles in his administration to help ensure we are effectively implementing these reforms so that Wall Street is held accountable and middle-class Americans never again are harmed by the abuses of a few,” a White House official said.
Ms. White will succeed Elisse B. Walter, a longtime S.E.C. official, who took over as chairwoman after Mary L. Schapiro stepped down as the agency’s leader in December. Mr. Cordray joined the consumer bureau in 2011 as its enforcement director.
The nominations could face a mixed reception in Congress. The Senate already declined to confirm Mr. Cordray, with Republicans vowing to block any candidate for the consumer bureau, a new agency created to rein in the financial industry’s excesses. It is unclear whether the White House and Mr. Cordray will face another standoff the second time around.
Ms. White, 65, is expected to receive broad support. But she could face questions about her command of arcane financial minutiae. She was a director of the Nasdaq stock market, but has otherwise built her career on the law-and-order side of the securities industry.
People close to the S.E.C. note, however, that her husband, John W. White, is a veteran of the agency. From 2006 through 2008, he was head of the S.E.C.’s division of corporation finance, which oversees public companies’ disclosures and reporting.
Some Democrats also might question her path through the revolving door, in and out of government. While seen as a strong enforcer as a United States attorney, she went on in private practice to defend some of Wall Street’s biggest names, including Kenneth D. Lewis, a former head of Bank of America.
Still, consumer advocates generally praised her appointment on Thursday. “Mary Jo White was a tough, smart, no-nonsense, broadly experienced and highly accomplished prosecutor,” said Dennis Kelleher, head of Better Markets, the nonprofit advocacy group. “She knew who the bad guys were, went after them and put them in prison when they broke the law.”
The appointment comes after the departure of Ms. Schapiro, who announced she would step down from the S.E.C. in late 2012. In a four-year tenure, she overhauled the agency after it was blamed for missing the warning signs of the crisis.
Since her exit, Washington and Wall Street have been abuzz with speculation about the next S.E.C. chief. President Obama quickly named Ms. Walter, then a Democratic commissioner at the agency, but her appointment was seen as a short-term solution.
In the wake of Ms. Schapiro’s exit, several other contenders surfaced, including Sallie L. Krawcheck, a longtime Wall Street executive. Richard G. Ketchum, chairman and chief executive of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Wall Street’s internal policing organization, was also briefly mentioned as a long-shot contender.
WASHINGTON -- Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, facing tough questions from Senate Republicans on the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, insisted Wednesday that she has moved aggressively to address security weaknesses laid bare by the assault.
In long-awaited testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Clinton acknowledged her personal responsibility as head of the State Department, and stressed that she has begun implementing all 29 corrective steps recommended by an in-house investigative board.
“I take responsibility,” said Clinton, whose appearance before the committtee was delayed for a month by a stomach flu, a concussion and a brief hospitalization. “Nobody is more committed to getting this right.”
At the same time, Clinton said she hadn’t seen specific requests for additional security personnel for the lightly protected diplomatic mission in Benghazi, saying those requests went to lower ranking “security professionals” at the State Department.
“I did not see these requests,” she said. “I did not approve them. I did not deny them.”
Clinton’s voice broke as she described seeing the bodies of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans killed in the attack as they arrived on a miltary cargo plane in Maryland.
“I put my arms around the mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, sons and daughters,” she said.
She said that 85% of the review committee’s recommendations are “on track” to be implemented by the end on March. She will testify again Wednesday afternoon before the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
Republicans sought to make the administration’s flawed handling of security at the Benghazi mission a political issue during the presidential campaign. But it’s unclear if they can open important new avenues of inquiry to keep the controversy alive. Clinton’s job approval ratings remain high as she prepares to step down from office — and perhaps consider a 2016 presidential run.
Clinton and the Senate committee also discussed the terrorism risks in North Africa, which have become painfully apparent in recent days with a bloody attack on an international gas field facility in Algeria.
She said many people wondered why the Pentagon created a new military command for Africa a few years ago. Now, she said, the question was whether Africa Command doesn’t need a large increase to its budget to deal with the expanding terror threat.
Follow Politics Now on Twitter and Facebook
paul.richter@latimes.com
Simple doesn’t just sell, it sticks. Simple made hits of the Nest thermostat, Fitbit, and TiVo. Simple brought Apple back from the dead. It’s why you have Netflix. The Fisher Space Pen, the Swiss Army Knife, and the Rolex Oyster Perpetual are some of our most enduring products. All are marvels of simplicity.
Yet while many mechanical marvels of simplicity remain true to their original form, most electronic ones do not.
Travel back in time to use your parents’ first microwave and you’ll likely see a box with three buttons (High, Medium, Low) and a timer dial. By contrast, one of LG’s current models boasts 33 buttons. Do I hit Auto Defrost or Express Defrost? And what the hell is Less/More? None of these make my popcorn pop faster or taste better. And it’s not easier to use. Why do products become more complex as they evolve?
“Simplicity is about subtraction,” says Mike Monteiro, author of Design Is a Job. “We live in a culture of consumption, where quality is associated with more. So designers and manufacturers tend to believe that to succeed you have to provide more. What if Microsoft announced that the next version of Office had 75 percent less functionality? It would be usable! But there’s no way marketing would let them get away with that.”
Take Apple. Simplicity saved the company. Starting with the iMac, it rolled out hit after simple hit: OS X, iTunes, the iPod, iPhone, and iPad. But as it grew into a behemoth, it allowed complexity to creep in. You can see it in iOS apps like Newsstand, which forces you to open a cheesy faux-wood bookcase before you can fire up the newspaper you actually want. A far worse example is iTunes. The new “simplified” version, iTunes 11, is fast but still has a baffling interface with a bevy of needless features. Its core function (playing music!) is lost in the shuffle. There is hope for Apple, though: The recent appointment of its minimalist-design guru Jony Ive as “human interface” chief is sure to mean re-simplified wares.
It’s no different at Google, which was also built on simple. Google won a decade of dominance with its sparse search page. Simplicity made Google a verb. But when Facebook got into its head, Google reacted by cluttering up its search page with features and buttons most people will never use. Worse, it junked up its results. A search for “pizza,” for instance, litters the page with ads, Google services like Zagat, and even news about pizza, none of which is clearly delineated from the actual search results.
As Apple and Google wrinkle into complexity, the doors are opened to newer, leaner rivals, like streaming music service Rdio or search engine upstart DuckDuckGo, both of which have clean interfaces that have won them passionate followings.
The ultimate lesson here may come from Microsoft. When it was time to roll out a new iteration of Windows, the company did something brave: It released a fundamentally different version of its flagship product. Windows 8 has a stripped-down interface, and full-screen apps run bereft of menus and ugly buttons. Simplified.
Well, half of it is. The other half is the traditional desktop. Want to run your existing Windows software? You’ll have to toggle back to that desktop. It’s confusing—jarring, even. By failing to commit, Microsoft made its OS more complicated, not less.
Simplicity is actually quite simple. It requires paring things away when market forces tell you to add. It means removing layers rather than adding them. In short, all it takes is a bit of courage.
Email: mat_honan@wired.com
PARK CITY, Utah (Reuters) – In a world where men rule the voice-over industry, actress Lake Bell brings a tale of women versus men and old versus new in her directorial debut comedy.
“In A World,” which premiered at the Sundance Film festival this week, follows voice-over artist Carol (Bell) attempting to follow in the daunting footsteps of her father (Fred Melamed), a famous and respected voice who is struggling to stay relevant as new talent emerges.
Written and directed by Bell, 33, who is best known for supporting roles in movies such as “No Strings Attached” and “What Happens in Vegas,” “In A World” is a quirky comedy with an unlikely heroine.
Bell talked to Reuters about the struggles of being in the voice-over world, her disdain for women with “sexy baby” voices, and what her superhero power would be.
Q: What drew you to the voice-over world for your film?
A: “I always envisioned that I was going to be one of the great voice-over artists. I thought I was going to kill it when I got to Hollywood. Since I was a kid, I loved accents, I collected them … I would manipulate my voice to make people laugh all the time. I liked this idea of being a blind voice – you could be any ethnicity, you could be from any country, you could be any race. I thought it was so cool that you wouldn’t be judged by who you are.”
Q: Your character, Carol, has to struggle with being a woman trying to break into the male-dominated world. Is that echoing the real-life industry?
A: “I started getting into the idea of the omniscient voice, the people who announce and tell you what to buy or how you should think about things, they help form your opinions. These random people from the sky, they always were male, and I thought it was an interesting subject to attack because why aren’t there any ladies? What are we, not omniscient? Are we not God?”
Q: How much of your own career struggles are reflected in Carol’s story?
A: “What’s interesting about Carol’s message is that she is a woman trying to find her voice, literally and also figuratively. As a filmmaker, I’m definitely embarking on this really beautiful journey of finding what my comedic voice is or what my filmic voice is.
“I’m lucky enough to have friends who took a chance on me and be in this film with me and respect me enough to let me direct them to do something different than maybe they’ve ever done before. There’s definitely parallels in feeling like I’m finding my own voice.”
Q: Was this an autobiographical film for you?
A: “It’s not anymore. Draft one is autobiographical, but by draft 25, it’s something else after so many rewrites, it takes on its own life. That’s what’s so cool about writing, you never know where it’s going to lead. I often like to write when I’m acting in something else because then I can show up and be part of the machine and be around creative people, and then come home and go off into different worlds in my head.”
Q: What do you want people to take away from watching this?
A: “I would hope in a fantasy world that the message is, people would somehow become aware of their own voice and respect it, because it’s a privilege. Women are plagued by the “sexy baby” vocal virus that is taken on, that is rampant in this nation. I just think that people should take themselves more seriously and give themselves a little more credit.”
Q: Do you have a dream role you’d like to play?
A: “The dream role is that I’m a superhero. I want to be a superhero … I want to have a superhero outfit because I like dressing up a lot. That would be fun.”
Q: What would your superhero power be?
A: “Right now, it’d be quelling the ‘sexy baby’ (voices) of the world and extinguishing them.”
(Reporting By Piya Sinha-Roy, editing by Jill Serjeant and Christopher Wilson)
Movies News Headlines – Yahoo! News
The Well section of The New York Times is starting a new online featured called Ask Well. If you have a question about fitness, nutrition, illness or family health, the staff of The New York Times Health section is ready to help you find the answer.
How do you solve the problem of back pain caused by sitting in an office chair all day? Do you still need the flu shot even if you’ve had the flu? What’s the best way to heal tennis elbow? Those are some of the questions we’ve already answered in Ask Well.
Tara Parker-Pope speaks about Ask Well.
All questions submitted to Ask Well will be reviewed by the health staff. We’ll post selected questions and let readers vote on those they would most like to see answered. You can ask a question, vote for your favorites and read answered questions on the Ask Well Questions Page.
While Ask Well is not a source for personal medical advice (only your doctor can give you that), we can offer readers health information from the experts and guide you to various resources to help you make informed decisions. So let’s get started. Tell us what’s on your mind, and Ask Well will provide the answers.
Oli Scarff/Getty Images
LONDON — Prime Minister David Cameron promised Britons a decisive referendum within five years on membership in the European Union — provided he wins the next election — in a long-awaited speech on Wednesday whose implications have alarmed the Obama administration and are likely to set the markers for an intense debate in Britain and across Europe.
“It is time for the British people to have their say. It is time to settle this European question in British politics,” he told an audience in London, raising fears in capitals as distant as Washington that a ballot could lead to Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union.
His pledge drew a sharp response from European leaders who accused Mr. Cameron, in the words of a senior German politician, of trying to “cherry-pick” the economic benefits of E.U. membership without subscribing to the broader European project. Politicians in France and Germany said Britain could not have “Europe à la carte.”
The United States has been unusually public in its insistence that Britain, a close ally, stay in the union, fearing its departure would heighten centrifugal forces that would weaken Europe as a diplomatic, military and financial partner.
President Obama recently told Mr. Cameron by telephone that “the United States values a strong U.K. in a strong European Union, which makes critical contributions to peace, prosperity and security in Europe and around the world,” a spokesman said.
Mr. Cameron coupled his promise of a referendum with an impassioned defense of continued membership in a more streamlined and competitive European Union, built around its core single market underpinning the body’s internal trade. But he acknowledged the risks, saying any exit from the European Union “would be a one-way ticket.”
“I know there will be those who say the vision I have outlined will be impossible to achieve. That there is no way our partners will cooperate. That the British people have set themselves on a path to inevitable exit. And that if we aren’t comfortable being in the E.U. after 40 years, we never will be,” he said. “But I refuse to take such a defeatist attitude — either for Britain or for Europe.”
“And when the referendum comes,” he said, “I will campaign for it with all my heart and soul.”
The speech was a defining moment in Mr. Cameron’s political career, reflecting a belief that by wresting some powers back from the European Union, he can win the support of a grudging British public that has long been ambivalent — or actively hostile — toward the idea of European integration.
“We have the character of an island nation — independent, forthright, passionate in defense of our sovereignty,” he said. “We can no more change this sensibility than drain the English Channel.”
Coming a day after the leaders of France and Germany met in Berlin to celebrate a half-century of sometimes uneasy partnership, Mr. Cameron’s plea for acknowledgment of British distinctions seemed to reflect some of the deepest political and philosophical differences between London and Continental Europe on integration.
France wants Britain to stay in the European Union, both as an ally in security matters and as a counterweight to Germany. But France is also outspoken in its refusal to allow Britain to pick and choose its obligations. Paris objects not so much to a British refusal to take on new obligations, especially since Britain does not use the euro, as to any effort to repatriate powers already ceded to Brussels.
The French concern, shared by many others in and out of the euro zone, is that Britain will undermine one of the great, if unfinished accomplishments of the European Union, the single market in goods and services.
“You cannot do Europe à la carte,” said Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius of France. “Imagine the E.U. was a soccer club: once you’ve joined up and you’re in this club, you can’t then say you want to play rugby.”
Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, who is often sympathetic to Mr. Cameron’s criticisms of European Union excesses, said she and her country viewed Britain as “an important part and an active member” of the European Union. The E.U., she said, “has always meant that we should find fair compromises.”
Steven Erlanger and Scott Sayare contributed reporting from Paris and Victor Homola from Berlin.
Auditors reviewing a $1.75-million car leasing contract given to a company with a politically connected lobbying firm found that Los Angeles County officials had failed to create a "truly competitive" process, but that there was no evidence of improper influence.
Investigators with the county auditor-controller's office reviewed the Enterprise Rent-a-Car contract at the request of Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich. A report by KCET-TV had raised questions about the way the business was awarded.
Enterprise was given a sole-source, five-year deal in March to provide 60 leased vehicles to the county's Community Development Commission and to maintain the agency's existing fleet. Commission staff projected that outsourcing the fleet services would save about $300,000 a year.
The Nov. 28 report on KCET's "SoCal Connected" focused on the lobbying firm Englander Knabe & Allen and questioned whether its clients — including Enterprise — got an unfair advantage because partner Matt Knabe is the son of county Supervisor Don Knabe, who voted along with all the other supervisors to award the contract.
Both Knabes have said that their relationship has never posed a conflict, and a spokesman for the Englander firm has said Matt Knabe never lobbies his father directly.
The auditor-controller found no evidence of attempts to influence the rental car award. Matt Knabe told investigators that no one from his firm had lobbied on the contract, and the commission's executive director said he was "100% confident" the supervisor's son did not influence the process.
"The report shows that Matt acted professionally and used no undue influence in his dealings with the county," said Englander partner Eric Rose.
But the review did find that county staff did an "inadequate" job of trying to find other potential bidders.
Asked by KCET what vendors had been contacted and given a chance to compete for the business, a county analyst created a list to make it appear the department had reached out to 50 companies. In fact, only 16 firms had been contacted, auditors found. Enterprise was the only company that responded to the email request, and staff made no follow-up attempt to contact the other firms.
According to the auditor's report, the count of 50 vendors was originally used as a "place holder" in a template document and never corrected. By the time the contract was awarded, the contract analyst "felt he could not correct the number without embarrassment."
Investigators also found that the agency violated its own policy by not advertising the contract on the commission's or the county's websites, and that the contract should have gone through a full bidding process.
In addition, several vendors that contract officials emailed to invite interest had no "realistic potential" to provide a leased fleet to the county in the first place, the review concluded.
Investigators wrote that they couldn't determine whether the commission could have gotten a better deal but said "the potential for greater savings from a more competitive process appears to be plausible."
County auditor-controller Wendy Watanabe called the situation "embarrassing" but chalked up the issues to incompetence rather than intentional steering.
"I think they got lazy, they took a shortcut, and they didn't think it was that big of a deal," she said.
Watanabe said the investigation had focused on the Enterprise contract, so she could not say whether there was a broader issue with the agency's contracting process.
Commission representatives could not be reached Monday. The commission was slated to respond to the report's findings within 30 days.
abby.sewell@latimes.com
Copyright © News know. All rights reserved.
Design And Business Directories