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: Elaine Alaniz
Current job title: Disaster Recovery Specialist
Age: 44
Incumbent: No
Other political positions held: Westlake North Neighborhood Council, President
City where you reside: Los Angeles
Campaign website or social media: elainereadytoserve.vote
Rate the job the current Board of Supervisors is doing. (Please answer in 200 words or less.)
The Board of Supervisors is responsible for one of the largest public systems in the country, and I would rate its overall performance as below expectations, given the level of resources and authority it holds.
While there are dedicated frontline professionals doing important work, the broader system is not producing outcomes that reflect the scale of investment. We continue to see rising costs in areas like homelessness and public safety without the level of progress residents expect and deserve. From my experience in disaster response and large-scale operations, when there is no clear line of accountability and coordination, even well-funded efforts can become fragmented and ineffective. That pattern is evident in how some of the County’s most critical challenges are being managed.
Situations like the temporary hazardous waste processing site at Lario Park highlight a deeper issue, decisions are being made without consistent, transparent engagement with the communities most impacted. This is not about politics; it is about performance. The County needs stronger oversight, clearer accountability and leadership that is focused on measurable results.
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 understand the urgency of maintaining access to health care services, particularly for vulnerable populations. However, I do not support asking taxpayers to absorb additional burden without first demonstrating that existing resources are being managed with full accountability and efficiency.
Los Angeles County already operates with a budget exceeding $40 billion. Before turning to new taxes, the County has a responsibility to evaluate how current funds are being allocated, identify inefficiencies and ensure that critical services like hospitals and clinics are prioritized within existing resources. Through my work across multiple states and counties in disaster recovery, I have seen firsthand how repeated tax increases can strain communities, drive businesses out and limit long-term economic stability. When businesses leave, jobs follow and families are left with fewer opportunities.
Sustainable health care funding requires disciplined financial management, not short-term fixes that shift the burden onto residents. We should focus on restructuring spending, improving oversight and protecting essential services without continually increasing the cost of living for the people we serve.
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.)
The decision to separate from LAHSA acknowledges what many residents already feel: The current structure has not produced clear, measurable results. Creating a new County department is not a solution by itself. From my experience working in coordinated, multi-agency environments, including disaster response, success depends on clear lines of authority, real-time data, and accountability tied to outcomes. Without that, even well-funded systems can become fragmented.
In disaster response, there is no room for diffusion of responsibility. You know who is in charge, what the objective is and how success is measured. That level of clarity has been missing. If the County is going to take this on directly, it must operate with that same standard. Every contract should be tied to outcomes. Every dollar should be traceable. Leadership should be able to answer, in real time, how many people are moving into stability and how long it takes. This is an opportunity to reset, but only if the County is willing to move from managing the issue to solving it.
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 move to improve communication systems like CAD is necessary, but technology alone does not prevent disasters. From my experience working in disaster response and coordinated operations, an effective response is built before an incident occurs. It depends on preparation, clear command structure and making sure systems are understood by both agencies and the public ahead of time.
I would not say enough has been done yet. Strengthening notification systems is one piece, but prevention and readiness require a broader approach. That includes pre-established coordination across departments, regular interagency training and clear evacuation and communication protocols that are tested, not just written. Communities should know what to expect before a disaster, not during it. We also need to prioritize defensible space, infrastructure readiness, and outreach to high-risk areas so residents understand how to respond and where to go. In the environments I have worked in, the difference between a coordinated response and a chaotic one comes down to preparation and clarity. My focus would be ensuring the County is not only equipped to respond, but ready before the next incident occurs.
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.)
Preparedness should not begin when a disaster happens; it should already be part of how communities operate. From my experience in disaster response and coordination, the biggest gap is not resources; it is access and awareness. Programs exist, but they are not consistently reaching people in a way that is clear, practical, and actionable.
I would focus on making preparedness visible and routine. That means expanding partnerships with local organizations, faith-based groups, schools and small businesses to deliver hands-on education, not just information. Residents should know how to build a kit, understand evacuation routes and recognize alerts before they ever need them. We should also standardize community-level drills and outreach, especially in high-risk areas, so preparedness becomes familiar rather than reactive.
In addition, I would prioritize clearer, multilingual communication and consistent use of digital platforms to ensure residents know where to go and what to do in real time. In the environments I have worked in, preparedness is most effective when it is practiced, not just promoted. That is the standard we should be setting.
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 passed, so the question now is how to govern responsibly within it. I support stronger budget transparency and requiring department heads to present budgets directly to the Board can help improve oversight and public understanding. Voters approved Measure G in November 2024, so its new structure is now the framework the County has to work within.
Where I remain cautious is on expanding the Board and making the County CEO an elected position. In my view, the chief executive of a county government should be selected based on qualifications, management experience and the ability to run a complex organization, not on political popularity. The County CEO is an operational role, not a campaign role. A larger Board may increase representation, but it can also create more fragmentation and slower decision-making if discipline and accountability are not strengthened.
Going forward, the County should focus on clear lines of responsibility, professional management, transparent budgeting and measurable performance. Good government is not about adding more politics to administration; it is about making sure the system is competent, accountable and able to deliver results for the public.
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.)
The public is not an interruption to the process; they are the reason it exists. I understand the challenge of managing meetings with a high number of speakers, but a one-minute limit can prevent people from meaningfully expressing concerns, especially on issues that directly impact their lives. I believe we can do better by balancing access with structure.
One approach is to organize agendas more intentionally, grouping high-interest items separately and allocating more time where community impact is greatest. Meetings can also be structured with dedicated public comment sessions for major issues, rather than compressing everything into a single format. We should also expand options for participation, including written submissions, virtual comments and extended time for representative speakers when there are large groups with shared concerns. My responsibility is to the public. People should feel heard, not rushed. Effective governance is not just about moving through an agenda; it is about making sure the people we serve have a real opportunity to be part of the process.
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.)
I believe governance should be structured around performance, not concentration of power. Expanding the Board to nine members does not mean all nine should automatically sit on the Metro board. A larger group can slow decision-making and weaken accountability, especially for a system as important and complex as Metro. At the same time, I support including the voices of actual transit riders. They bring real, day-to-day experience with safety, reliability and access. Those roles, however, should be structured in a meaningful way, not symbolic, and balanced with members who have the experience to oversee a multi-billion-dollar system.
Having worked inside coordinated response systems, I’ve seen that the strongest operations are built on the right mix of expertise, accountability and real-world insight. The goal is simple: a mixed board of supervisors and actual transit riders with real-world experience and budget management qualifications, focused on results, making sure the system is safe, reliable and truly working for the people who depend on it every day.
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.)
The use of emergency and public health powers should be limited, targeted and reserved for true emergencies, not used as an ongoing substitute for the normal public process. The County has a responsibility to act when there is a real crisis. But when those powers are extended and applied countywide across all 88 cities, it raises legitimate concerns about overreach, local control and accountability. Emergency authority can be necessary in moments of urgency. It allows the government to act quickly when time matters. But it should not replace open debate, public input or the role of local jurisdictions that understand their communities best.
In practice, these broad powers may offer short-term relief, but they do not resolve the underlying issues driving housing instability or affordability. In some cases, they can create additional strain on small property owners and limit the flexibility cities need to manage their own conditions. There is a balance that must be respected. Act when it is necessary, but do not normalize emergency governance. Long-term solutions require transparency, collaboration and policies that can stand on their own outside of a crisis.
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 actions to increase screenings, monitoring and access to treatment are necessary, but they are largely reactive. The underlying issue is structural. Los Angeles County had already planned a facility to better separate individuals with serious mental health needs from those in custody for criminal offenses. That project was halted in 2019 after significant taxpayer investment, without fully replacing the intended capacity. Today, we are seeing the consequences.
Jails are not designed to serve as mental health treatment centers, and combining these populations increases risk for inmates and deputies. Our Sheriff’s personnel are being asked to manage complex situations without the proper environment or consistent support. We should revisit that decision. If plans, designs or site work from that project still exist, the County should evaluate whether it is feasible to move forward in a more focused and fiscally responsible way, rather than starting from scratch. Addressing this issue requires proper classification, dedicated mental health facilities and coordinated care. The goal should be to build a system that protects lives, supports deputies and uses taxpayer dollars to complete solutions, not abandon them.