Most of the contracts Los Angeles County awarded during the 12-year tenure of former Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, the formidable politician convicted last year on corruption charges, were not tainted by fraud, according to a years-long outside investigation .

“We have not identified a pattern of corruption and fraud,” Dan Shallman, a partner at the law firm Covington & Burling, told county supervisors Tuesday. “That’s the good news.”

The bad news, Shallman continued, is that the county’s contracting process, scrutinized during the nearly three-year forensic audit, is full of holes.

The county rarely suspends problem contractors, the firm found. Workers discuss county business on their personal phones. And contracts are sometimes awarded directly to a supplier and not put out to tender – without a clear explanation as to why.

These were among the main findings of the investigation ordered by the Supervisory Board in October 2021, shortly after Ridley-Thomas was indicted. A federal jury later convicted Ridley-Thomas of one count each of bribery, conspiracy and honest mail fraud and four counts of honest services wire fraud for funneling $100,000 of campaign money through USC to a nonprofit run by his son.

Ridley-Thomas, who served on the county council from 2008 to 2020 before joining the LA City Council, remains at large while he appeals his conviction.

Following the indictment, the commission hit the companies Covington & Burling and FTI Consulting to review county policies and find out if other contracts were affected during Ridley-Thomas’ tenure.

Three years later, after reviewing 200 contracts worth about $1.7 billion, representatives of the two firms said their findings were a “mixed bag” and that they could not provide the county government with “an of clean health”.

Too often, they said, the county does a poor job vetting vendors who receive millions of dollars in public money.

“At the end of the day, the county needs to know who it’s doing business with,” said Duane Campbell, forensic accounting expert with FTI Consulting.

Superintendent Hilda Solis, who supported the inquiry, described the findings as “consecrated”.

“Our job is to make sure that we are really very good for the taxpayer dollars,” she said.

Citing attorney-client privilege, the county previously declined to tell The Times how much either firm paid for the investigation, which took at least a year longer than expected.

The public also seems unlikely to see the final report. The county did not directly return a request from The Times for the report.

“We have no comment on this confidential independent review, other than to note that the county’s next step following today’s public presentation will be to fully review and operationalize Covington’s recommendations,” the county said in a statement .

The content of the survey was reduced to nine slides for a public presentation — including a title page and one that simply said “Conclusion.”

Representatives of both firms kept their public remarks vague Tuesday, glossing over specific cases of corruption they allegedly encountered and focusing instead on recommendations to strengthen county contracts.

Those improvements included creating a new Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer position and strengthening the county’s “revolving door policy” designed to prevent conflicts of interest for officials who have recently left government service.

The firms’ recommendations were rejected by supporters Measure Gthe governance reform measure on the November 5 ballot. The measure would create an ethics compliance officer — similar to what the firms have recommended — as well as nearly doubling the size of the board and creating a new elected executive position similar to a mayor.

“It’s clear that our antiquated governance model has fueled corruption, fueled by weak ethics oversight and an unchecked revolving door of influence,” Measure G campaign chair Morgan Miller said in a statement.

County supervisors, who are split on the measure, said they plan to move forward with an ethical commissionregardless of the election results.