This article was originally published by L.A. Public Press, and is republished here with permission.
This November, Los Angeles County voters will have the opportunity to vote on a charter amendment that, if passed, will begin a years-long process to reform the county’s governance structure. It proposes creating an independent ethics commission, expanding the powerful LA County Board of Supervisors, and adding an elected countywide executive office (aka a county mayor).
Government reform has been at the forefront of conversations at recent Board of Supervisors’ meetings. Early in July, supervisors Lindsey Horvath (Third District) and Janice Hahn (Fourth District) introduced a motion proposing the various reforms.
It wasn’t long before an array of organizations and people, including some supervisors, raised concerns about the process in which these proposed reforms came about.
The disagreement on the Board couldn’t be more obvious than in the voting. The proposed charter amendment received three out of the five votes, with supervisors Holly Mitchell (Second District) and Kathryn Barger (Fifth District) voting against it in the first and second reading of the ordinance, and abstaining from voting on the initial motion.
“After more than 100 years of status quo this is a proposal that gives Angelenos a chance to shape a county governance structure fit for the 21st Century,” said Horvath at the last Board meeting in July.
So what’ll you see on the ballot? If you’re an LA County voter, here’s a sneak peak of what will be on your ballot this fall:
But there’s so much more to the reform proposal than the few words on the ballot. Here’s a link to the full 35 page charter amendment. It’s also embedded at the bottom of this page.
Board Expansion
The proposed charter amendment calls for increasing the number of elected supervisors on the Board from five to nine.
As of now, each supervisor represents large diverse districts home to about two million people. Having such large districts makes it difficult for residents to access their elected representative, especially for people living in unincorporated areas who rely on their supervisor and the county to provide essential local services and programs.
Those pushing the charter reform say that expanding the Board will allow for a more racially diverse Board that reflects the county’s population. In a county with almost 50% of the population being Latino, only one Latina currently serves on the Board. LA County is home to more Asian Americans than any other county in the United States, yet no person of Asian descent has ever served on the Board. The current five-member Board is made up of all women, with three white supervisors, one Black supervisor, and one Latina.
Although all current Board members have agreed at one point or another that it is time to expand, questions were raised whether nine was the appropriate number. Throughout July, the supervisors debated whether the recommendations in the ordinance were studied enough or over-studied.
Several community-based organizations such as the Social Justice Learning Institute, Community Coalition, and the Los Angeles Community Action Network (LACAN) signed onto a letter submitted to the Board at the last meeting of July asking the supervisors to reconsider the charter amendment. The letter describes the proposed amendment “fundamentally flawed” and “not backed by empirical evidence and lack of true community engagement.”
“I think the community has the right and responsibility to be suspicious particularly when you’re trying to make such a big change to the charter in weeks,” said Pete White, executive director for LACAN, an organization whose mission is to help people living in poverty have decision-making power.
White shared that he is particularly concerned about how expansion can potentially affect representation for Black Angelenos. Black people make up 9% of the population in the county but disproportionately make up 30% of those incarcerated in LA County jails, and 31% the county’s unhoused population. He’s afraid that redistricting might disenfranchise Black Angelenos, and diminish the community-based power they’ve built.
“This is why there has to be a process by which the community is part of the analysis,” said White.
Horvath, the sponsor of the governance reform motion, referenced a survey conducted earlier this year showing that LA County voters support a charter amendment and government reform. However, the survey has been criticized for having a small sample data of 854 likely voters in comparison to the almost 10 million people that live in the county.
“Polling a select few does not equate to an inclusive, equity-driven, community-centered approach to governance reform,” read the letter submitted in July. “More work is needed to ensure that any reform package truly reflects the aspirations and needs of LA County’s diverse communities.”
Last year, Mitchell and Horvath co-sponsored a motion directing county officials to identify a consultant to review the county’s governance model and identify potential improvements, including expansion. The motion emphasized the importance of “public participation” in the Board’s decision-making processes as a means to achieving more “equitable policy outcomes” for some of the county’s more vulnerable communities, including low-income communities of color and recent immigrants. However, a year and a half later, a consultant has not been selected much less has a study begun.
“Has the study taken too long? Absolutely,” said Mitchell at a late July meeting. The supervisor followed her statement requesting the county’s Chief Executive Office (CEO), which prepares the budget and operation recommendations to the Board, to report back to each supervisor’s office by email on why the process has taken so long. However, it’s unclear when the report back is expected, according to Lenée Richards, Mitchell’s chief communications officer.
Even if voters approve government reform this November, Mitchell is confident that this isn’t the end of last year’s motion. She says that the original reform motion includes a more holistic review of the county’s governance model that goes beyond what’s included in the reform package, and can even supplement the work that’s to come from the charter amendment.
“I don’t believe that expansion alone will solve some of the greatest challenges with LA County’s governance,” said Mitchell.
If passed, the Board expansion will not happen until the 2030 redistricting process, and the four new seats will not be elected until 2032.
Independent Ethics Commission
The Board of Supervisors isn’t immune to corruption scandals.
Last year, former Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas was convicted on federal corruption charges for voting in support of county contracts favoring the University of Southern California and accepting benefits for his son from the university while he served on the county Board of Supervisors.
The charter amendment proposes the creation of an LA County Ethics Commission and Office of Ethics Compliance. The commission would have the power to:
- Investigate misconduct by county officials;
- Monitor and enforce laws regarding campaign finance, conflicts of interest, lobbying, post-government employment, government contracts, and land use developer conflicts;
- Regularly review the county code and make recommendations to the Board for updates;
- Develop tools where data is available to the public regarding government activity such as tracking lobbying.
The amendment also authorizes the suspension, with or without pay, of an elected county official who has been criminally charged with a felony. It will also prohibit former county officials from lobbying the county for a minimum of two years after no longer working there.
However, even if voters don’t approve the charter amendment, the county is expected to report back on the establishment of an ethics commission after Barger sponsored a motion stating its urgency.
“If this Board is serious about making changes, I hope you will support the creation of this ethics commission as soon as possible,” said Barger.
Elected County Executive (aka County Mayor)
Perhaps, the most contentious part of the proposed reforms is the proposed elected countywide executive.
The five-member Board currently holds three major powers in county government: executive, legislative, and quasi-judicial. They administer local functions, enact ordinances, and are the final decision-makers in administrative and public hearings. In a county with a population and budget bigger than most US states, that means great power and responsibility.
The elected county executive is supposed to change that and serve as a balance of power to the Board. This position is meant to fulfill the duties similar to those in the executive branch of government and was often compared to the mayor of a city or governor of the state at an earlier Board meeting.
Some of the county executive’s responsibilities include having the power to approve or veto an ordinance or resolution adopted by the Board. The county executive will also be responsible for developing and submitting the county’s annual budget and will have the power to veto amendments made by the Board of Supervisors. However, the Board could overrule the veto with a two-thirds vote within seven days.
Supervisors Barger and Mitchell raised concerns about this role and the amount of power being given to a single individual, especially since this position will not have term limits, as written in the charter amendment proposal.
“I don’t know that we will attract the best people for that job in terms of the true integrity of the work and the role,” said Mitchell to LA Public Press.
Barger tried to amend the ordinance and remove the elected executive position during the first reading of the ordinance, but the amendment failed.
If passed, the office of an elected county executive will be established by 2028. The county executive will appoint a director of budget and management, who will provide recommendations on the finances of the county. The office will also include a county legislative analyst position, appointed by the Board, who will provide the supervisors with nonpartisan support on policy.
