Big LA County reforms, including Board of Supervisors expansion, clear first hurdle

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors moved forward Tuesday with a wide-ranging proposal to dramatically change how county governance works. The measure would expand the powerful panel from five to nine members and create a countywide elected executive position akin to a mayor.

Three supervisors supported the proposal. Supervisors Kathryn Barger and Holly Mitchell abstained, citing cost and other concerns.

Supervisors asked county lawyers to prepare a measure for the November ballot. The proposal requires voter approval because it involves changing the county charter.

Why expand the board?

In proposing the measure, Supervisors Lindsey Horvath and Janice Hahn said L.A. County is “an anomaly” with five board members representing 10 million residents, or 2 million people each.

Keep up with LAist.

If you're enjoying this article, you'll love our daily newsletter, The LA Report. Each weekday, catch up on the 5 most pressing stories to start your morning in 3 minutes or less.

Subscribe

San Francisco, for example, has an 11-member board for a population of 875,000. Cook County, Illinois, which includes Chicago, has a 17- member commission for a population of 5.2 million.

“As a result, Los Angeles County residents suffer deficits of representation and accountability,” Horvath and Hahn said in their motion.

Horvath said at Tuesday's meeting that expanding the board board would put "more power into the hands of the community.”

Many community activists have long said the board is too small to represent L.A. County’s racially and ethnically diverse population. Right now, the all-woman board includes three white people, one Black person, and one Latina — in a county that is nearly half Latino. No Asian American has ever sat on the board, even though Asian Americans comprise almost 15% of the population.

Over the years, there have been numerous other attempts to expand the board both through ballot measures and state legislation. All have failed in part because voters opposed increasing the number of politicians who represent them. Some elected leaders have also been reluctant to support expanding the board, which would reduce the power of individual board members.

Under the proposal, the nine-member plan would not take effect until 2032, after a redistricting process.

Other proposed reforms

The proposal is part of a package of reforms.

Another major item would make the county’s chief executive officer an elected position responsible in part for crafting a budget. That person would have the power to veto any changes to the budget the board wanted to make unless overridden by a two-thirds vote of the board.

This year’s budget is $46 billion.

Right now the board appoints the CEO, who manages day-to-day operations of the county. The CEO manages a dizzying array of county functions, including the delivery of social services, public health, and fire services.

“A countywide official, elected by and answerable to the voters, is best positioned to consider the common interests of the entire County population and to be held accountable for their implementation,” the motion states. “Such a system would sharply reduce the potential for parochialism and focus an essential regional perspective.”

It goes on: “As we have faced and continue to face numerous crises on multiple fronts — the COVID-19 pandemic, massive wildfires, homelessness, criminal justice reform, and climate change to name a few— the lack of strong, elected executive leadership has impacted our ability to address those challenges as nimbly and efficiently as possible.”

The plan calls for electing a county chief executive by 2028.

Barger, who refused to support the package, expressed concern about politicizing the position by making it elected.

“I believe it should be non-partisan, unbiased in running the daily operations of the county," she said.

Los Angeles county is one of the few in the nation with no countywide elected chief executive.

A focus on ethics violations

It's unclear how much the reforms would cost. The motion requires that implementation of the measure only use existing county funding sources, “and there not be any additional costs to or taxes imposed on taxpayers to implement this measure.”

Mitchell, who also did not support the measure, said she doubted there would be no cost to taxpayers.

“I don’t see how we pay for that," Mitchell said. "So I am very uncomfortable with the notion that it is being billed as cost neutral.”

Horvath suggested the money could come from cutting the number of county commissions.

Another proposed reform would create an independent ethics commission designed to root out corruption by elected officials. The panel would be charged with administering county and state laws related to such areas as campaign finance, government contracts, land use developers, government ethics, and lobbying. The measure would also create an Office of Ethics Compliance.

“With additional elected representation comes the need for independent oversight to maintain public trust,” Horvath and Hahn said in their motion. “The numerous reports of ethics and corruption scandals in local government over the last two decades reinforce this need.”

One reform is aimed at elected county officials who break the law. It would allow anyone who has been criminally charged with a felony related to a violation of official duties to be suspended with or without pay.

Another is aimed at former county employees. It would require a “revolving door” policy “that prohibits former Los Angeles County officials from lobbying the County for a minimum of two years after leaving County service, not the current one year.”

More than 50 people spoke at the meeting, nearly all in support of the package of reforms.

“Expanding the board from five to nine will allow more diverse voices reflective of the makeup of Los Angeles County," said Alissa Bernstein of the American Jewish Committee, adding the measure would would bring people "closer to their elected supervisors.”

Supervisors would need to take a final vote on the package of reforms by Aug. 9 to get them on the November ballot.