Ahead of the June primary election, the Southern California News Group compiled a list of questions to pose to the candidates who wish to represent you. You can find the full questionnaire below. Questionnaires may have been edited for spelling, grammar, length and, in some instances, to remove hate speech and offensive language.
Name: David E. Argudo
Current job title: La Puente Councilmember
Age: 55
Incumbent: No
Other political positions held: La Puente Valley Municipal Water District, Board Member
City where you reside: La Puente
Campaign website or social media: N/A
Rate the job the current Board of Supervisors is doing. (Please answer in 200 words or less.)
I believe the current Board of Supervisors has largely maintained the status quo, reacting to crises rather than proactively shaping the future of our communities. While they have addressed some immediate issues, I have not seen bold, innovative action that truly improves the quality of life for residents across District One and LA County.
We need a board that actively champions healthier communities, environmental justice and the creation of more productive green spaces. Reliable, clean water should not be a privilege — it is a necessity. I also believe the County should collaborate more closely with local municipalities to ensure that policies are tailored, effective and equitable, rather than one-size-fits-all mandates.
As your supervisor, I will bring a forward-thinking approach that prioritizes sustainability, community health and environmental stewardship. I won’t wait for crises to dictate action; I will work to prevent them and create long-term solutions that make LA County a better place to live, work and raise a family. Our communities deserve leadership that is proactive, accountable and bold.
Due to impacts from federal government cuts to Medi-Cal, the Board of Supervisors put a measure on the June 2 ballot, a half-cent sales tax to raise about $1 billion to stop-gap financial losses and keep hospitals and clinics functioning. How do you stand on this ballot measure? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)
I cannot support this ballot measure as it stands. While we all agree that protecting access to health care is critical, asking taxpayers to shoulder another half-cent sales tax is not the right solution — especially when trust in how county funds are managed is already low.
We are being told this tax will “save” hospitals and clinics, yet seven out of 13 clinics are already slated for closure. That raises serious concerns about accountability and whether new revenue will actually fix the problem or simply sustain a broken system.
We’ve seen this before. Voters approved hundreds of millions for homelessness programs, but the crisis has only worsened. Before asking working families to pay more — especially through a regressive sales tax that hits lower-income residents the hardest — the County must demonstrate real reform, transparency and measurable results.
I believe local tax dollars should stay in our communities, addressing neighborhood-level needs — not be absorbed into a county system that has yet to prove it can deliver outcomes.
We need better management, not higher taxes. I urge voters to demand accountability and vote no on this measure.
The County is in a fight with LAHSA regarding homeless services and has formed its own Department of Homeless Services & Housing. What are your thoughts on that plan and the break from LAHSA? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)
Breaking from the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority and creating a new County department should not mean building another costly layer of bureaucracy that dilutes resources meant for people in crisis. Voters deserve results, not reshuffling.
I support reform — but it must be outcome-driven. If the County forms its own Department of Homeless Services & Housing, it must come with strict accountability: clear performance metrics, real-time public dashboards and funding tied directly to measurable reductions in street homelessness, not administrative expansion.
Homelessness is not one-size-fits-all. What works in Downtown Los Angeles is not what works in La Puente, where we’ve successfully deployed our local “PROS Team” model — connecting individuals to services quickly and effectively at the community level. The County should empower cities, not sideline them.
My approach is simple: push resources down to local governments and proven community partners, cut duplication and demand transparency at every level. Whether through LAHSA or a new department, success should be judged by one standard — fewer people on the streets and more people in stable housing.
I will fight to ensure every dollar delivers real impact for our communities.
After the Palisades and Eaton fires, the County Fire and Sheriff have moved to develop a new CAD communications system to better notify residents in case of fire or other disaster. Have the Board of Supervisors and County departments done enough to prevent another such disaster? What else would you like to see implemented if you are elected? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)
The Palisades and Eaton fires exposed serious gaps in preparedness, coordination and real-time communication. While the County’s move to modernize its CAD system is a step in the right direction, it is not enough. Technology alone cannot prevent disasters — leadership, accountability and proactive investment must come first.
As Supervisor, Argudo will push for a comprehensive wildfire and disaster readiness strategy: expanding vegetation management and defensible space programs, hardening critical infrastructure and ensuring consistent funding for our Fire and Sheriff departments. We must also modernize evacuation planning with clear, community-specific routes and multilingual alert systems that reach every resident — especially seniors and vulnerable populations.
Argudo will demand stronger coordination between County, city and state agencies so resources are deployed faster and more effectively. Additionally, we need neighborhood-level preparedness programs so residents are trained and ready before disaster strikes.
We cannot wait for the next fire to act. Argudo will bring urgency, accountability and common-sense solutions to protect lives, homes, and our communities.
More specifically, what would you do to get LA County residents more prepared for a fire or other major disaster, such as a major earthquake? (Please limit your answer to 200 words or less.)
Too many candidates talk about preparedness — I’ve actually done the work. I am the only candidate in this race with executive-level disaster preparedness training through FEMA, and I will bring that experience directly to Los Angeles County.
As Supervisor, I will expand Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) programs so every neighborhood has trained volunteers ready to act in the first critical hours of a disaster. I will partner with FEMA to increase access to certified training, ensuring residents know how to respond to fires, earthquakes and other emergencies before first responders arrive.
Preparedness must be local and practical. I will implement community-based drills, improve multilingual public education campaigns and ensure every household has access to clear emergency plans and evacuation routes. We will also work with schools, businesses and faith-based organizations to build a culture of readiness across District 1.
Disasters are inevitable — but being unprepared is not. With my training and leadership, we will empower residents with the tools, knowledge, and confidence to protect themselves and their neighbors when it matters most.
The county’s voters approved Measure G, bringing the number of supervisors up to nine. Other changes include requirements for the county CEO to be elected and for department heads to present budgets periodically to the Board of Supervisors as an act of transparency in budgeting. Give your thoughts on Measure G, its changes and future changes to county governance. (Please limit your answer to 200 words or less.)
Measure G reflects what residents have been demanding for years: greater accountability, transparency and a government that truly represents the diversity of Los Angeles County. Expanding the Board from five to nine supervisors is a step in the right direction — smaller districts mean your voice is heard more clearly, and your community gets the attention it deserves.
I strongly support the added transparency requirements, including regular budget presentations by department heads. Taxpayers deserve to know exactly how their money is being spent, and this reform moves us toward a more open and responsible government.
At the same time, we must be honest about potential challenges. Creating an elected CEO alongside nine elected supervisors could introduce unnecessary political friction and slow down decision-making. My priority will be to ensure this new structure works efficiently — focused on results, not bureaucracy.
The voters have spoken, and I respect that. As your Supervisor, I will work to strengthen what works, fix what doesn’t and ensure Measure G delivers on its promise: a more transparent, accountable and responsive county government that puts residents first.
People who comment on a board item or a general comment are limited to one minute. Some say that is way too short for them to fully express their opinion. The County says they often have hundreds who request to speak on the same item, dragging out meetings until evening. Do you agree with the one-minute rule? Why or why not? (Please limit your answer to 200 words or less.)
Public service is not about convenience — it’s about accountability. As Supervisor, my responsibility is to listen to the people we serve, not rush them. One minute is often not enough time for residents to clearly express concerns that impact their families, neighborhoods, and livelihoods.
That said, I also recognize the need to run efficient meetings when hundreds of people want to speak. We shouldn’t force a choice between access and efficiency — we can achieve both. I support expanding public participation through commonsense reforms: allowing additional time for speakers on major agenda items, grouping speakers with similar positions, accepting more written and virtual testimony and holding dedicated community forums outside regular board meetings.
Residents deserve to be heard fully and respectfully. When people feel heard, trust in government increases — and that leads to better, more informed decisions.
I do not support a rigid one-minute limit. I support a smarter, more flexible approach that respects the public’s voice while ensuring the Board can do its job effectively.
All the Board of Supervisors are also placed on the LA Metro board, a powerful board in itself. Do you believe all nine members should serve on the board? And, should the LA Metro board, at the request of Fourth District Supervisor Janice Hahn, add actual transit riders to the Metro board, in addition or instead of nine supervisors? (Please limit your answer to 200 words or less.)
Metro is one of the most powerful decision-making bodies in our region, and its choices impact millions of residents every day. I don’t oppose having all nine Supervisors serve on the board — there is value in full county representation and accountability. But governance should not come at the expense of a real-world perspective.
I support adding dedicated transit rider representatives to the Metro board. Riders experience the system daily — its delays, safety concerns, cleanliness and gaps in service. Their voices bring practical insight that policymakers alone cannot replicate. If we are serious about improving ridership, equity and system performance, those lived experiences must be at the table.
A balanced model is the right path forward: maintain strong representation from the Board of Supervisors while formally incorporating transit riders from across the county. This ensures decisions are both regionally coordinated and grounded in reality.
This is about better outcomes — not politics. When riders help shape policy, we build a system that people actually want to use.
Recently, the Board of Supervisors has been using public health and emergency powers, meaning it can pass laws (i.e., for rent stabilization, price-gouging, eviction restrictions, etc.) countywide, affecting not just unincorporated areas of L.A. County, but all 88 cities as well. Do you believe this is justified or too much power? Does this help with these issues? Please explain your thinking. (Please limit your answer to 200 words or less.)
Emergency powers exist for a reason — but they must be used carefully, transparently and only when truly necessary.
I do not support the routine use of countywide emergency powers to override all 88 cities. That approach risks overreach and unintended consequences — especially for small businesses, working families and local economies already under pressure. One-size-fits-all policies rarely work in a county as large and diverse as Los Angeles.
Local cities understand their communities best. They should have a seat at the table before sweeping mandates are imposed. Collaboration — not top-down control — leads to smarter, more balanced solutions that protect both residents and businesses.
That said, I do recognize there are moments — major disasters, public safety crises or extreme emergencies — where decisive county action is necessary. In those cases, emergency powers should be temporary, narrowly tailored and subject to clear oversight.
My approach is simple: use these powers sparingly, partner with local governments and always weigh the full impact before acting. We can protect tenants, support businesses, and keep our communities stable — without sacrificing accountability or local control.
Responding to a surge in jail deaths over the past year, the Board of Supervisors has called on the Sheriff’s Department and other agencies to implement a series of wide-ranging reforms. Supervisors demanded more thorough security screenings and safety checks at the jails, consistent monitoring of surveillance cameras and better access to drug treatment and drug reversal medications. What do you think of this approach to the problem? What else, in your opinion, needs to be done? (Please limit your answer to 200 words or less.)
The Board’s reforms are a necessary first step, but they do not go far enough — and in some cases, they risk overloading an already strained system. You cannot demand more safety checks, more screenings and more monitoring without addressing the chronic staffing shortages that undermine everything. For years, our jails have operated with dangerously low deputy staffing, forcing personnel to do 100% of the work with roughly 75% of the workforce. That is not just unsustainable — it is unsafe for both inmates and staff.
We must immediately prioritize hiring and retention to restore safe staffing levels. At the same time, we need a smarter approach: expand mental health and substance abuse treatment inside facilities, ensure real-time monitoring of high-risk individuals, and deploy civilian medical and behavioral health professionals to reduce the burden on deputies.
Accountability also matters. Independent oversight, transparent reporting of in-custody deaths, and enforceable standards must be in place so failures are corrected quickly — not repeated.
As Supervisor, I will focus on practical solutions: fully staffing our jails, supporting our workforce and addressing the root causes of in-custody deaths. Real reform means giving our system the resources — and accountability — it needs to save lives.