One would think that a ballot measure dramatically changing the way Los Angeles County functions by boosting the number of board members from five to nine and requiring the election of the county’s chief executive would be getting tons of attention.
That has not been the case, at least not so far.
A “Yes on Measure G” campaign has launched, said campaign spokesperson Zahra Hajee on Sept. 19, who pointed to a bare bones website that summarizes the complex initiative’s major points as proof. The campaign promises to hold press events starting when ballots hit voters’ mailboxes — 29 days before the Nov. 5 election, she said.
In fact, most pundits and even supporters don’t expect voters to hear about this measure much because it’s very expensive to send campaign mailers to 5.8 million registered voters, said the Measure G chief author, Third District Supervisor Lindsey Horvath.
She expects mailers will be sent to certain target groups instead. The Yes on G – Communities United Action Fund has raised a total of $75,000 as of Sept. 17: $50,000 from Jihee Huh of Rolling Hills and $25,000 from Carol Choi of Irvine, according to records. It could take millions of dollars to run even a rudimentary campaign.
“It’s a crowded ballot. The problem with trying to change the county government is very expensive,” Horvath said.
Horvath said the supervisors placed the initiative on the ballot by their own vote, saving a private group the trouble and cost of acquiring signatures. The vote was 3-2. Horvath and Supervisors Janice Hahn and Hilda Solis voted in favor, while Supervisors Holly Mitchell and Kathryn Barger were opposed.
Joel Kotkin, conservative pundit and professor of urban studies at Chapman University in Orange County, said he hadn’t heard much at all about the measure, though he said he focuses more on state and federal elections.
Joel Fox, an adjunct professor at Pepperdine University Graduate School of Public Policy said he hopes Fernando Guerra, professor at Loyola Marymount University and author of the “yes” ballot argument, will put together a debate. Guerra did not respond to phone calls on Friday.
Fox said whatever amount the campaign raises, that may be an advantage because so far there appears to be no organized “no” campaign, aside from the two county supervisors who are opposed. “It’s a real important policy debate. You might see some news coverage,” Fox said. “But no, I don’t think we’ll see a huge campaign.”
What is Measure G?
Here’s a breakdown of the measure’s major points:
• Raises the number of county supervisors from five to nine.
• The county CEO, now appointed by the board, would be elected.
• Creates other positions needed to facilitate budgeting and ethics reform: an ethics compliance officer, a director of budget and management, and a county legislative analyst. Costs and salaries for these positions are not specified in the measure.
• Department heads would present each of their budgets for public review, as opposed to just a single review of the entire budget. The county’s budget is about $46 billion. The public would be given five days notice of any proposed board motion.
• Any former politician would be banned from lobbying the county for the first two years after leaving office. Also, it authorizes suspension of county politicians who are criminally charged with a felony.
Third District Supervisor Lindsey Horvath speaks about a reform proposal that includes expanding the Board of Supervisors to nine members, electing a county CEO and establishing an ethics commission. She spoke at a press conference at county headquarters in downtown Los Angeles on Wednesday, July 3, 2024. (photo by Steve Scauzillo)
If approved by a majority of voters in the county on Nov. 5, reforms will be slowly instituted. The county’s reform package would launch in 2026, creating a county ethics commission, followed by the election of a county executive officer in 2028.
Voters would then begin expanding the number of seats following the 2030 U.S. Census and during elections starting in 2032. New supervisor districts would have to be redrawn before the election, a process that could become controversial.
While all of this is a lot for voters to digest, Horvath said the changes fit county governance into a more typical checks and balances system. An elected CEO will have more power and can enforce policy or “legislative” actions crafted by the board with a stronger hand. This is similar to governance in the city of Los Angeles, which has a city council making policy and a mayor acting in the capacity of the executive branch.
“These are not radical or new ideas,” Horvath said. “These are basic civics principles I learned in grade school on how government should work.”
She argued that board stagnation on the issue of closing Men’s Central Jail, homelessness policies and other issues is due to the lack of a more authoritative CEO who would wield more power than the current, appointed CEO, Fesia Davenport.
During a recent board discussion with various department heads about providing services to foster youth, Horvath said nothing got done. “These departments do not work well together because no one is in charge. When five people are in charge, no one is in charge,” she said.
But Barger strongly denounced an elected county CEO, calling it a wrong move.
“That will politicize our chief executive officer position,” she wrote in an emailed response on Sept. 19. “We need an executive that is non-partisan and unbiased in running the daily operations of the county, not another politician,” she added.
Districts too large
Most political experts say the current system in which each supervisor is responsible for 2 million constituents curbs participation in county government.
“I do think having five supervisors for 10 million people is an absurdity,” Kotkin said. However, he sees the real problem with the county and state leaders as being from one party — Democratic — instead of many parties being represented. Barger is a Republican, but she often votes with the majority.
“We have a one-party system controlled by progressive ideologues. Whether you have nine people instead of five supporting that politics might not make much difference,” Kotkin said.
In a statement after the measure was approved by the board majority for the November ballot, Mitchell questioned the expansion. “There was no data-informed reason for why the number nine was chosen for board seats versus any other number.”
Barger, in her emailed response, added: “We have a homelessness crisis on our hands and pervasive public safety issues like smash and grabs. But as I’ve said before, bigger government doesn’t necessarily translate to better.”
Cost and other concerns
While supporters say the county’s $45 billion budget will absorb the cost of new department heads and staff for four new supervisors, others say the measure will add costs.
“If it passes, the measure will add millions to the county’s future budget, which will come at the expense of services and programs. This may lead to cuts of nurses, social workers, first responders and others,” wrote Barger.
“This ordinance does not propose service cuts,” said Horvath at a July 23 board meeting.
Fox said that in previous attempts to expand the board, the cost of more government was a primary reason for defeat. “That has been a key issue in voters’ minds in the past. That could work against it.”
Some constituents, including those from nonprofit groups who’ve advocated for better mental health services and less incarceration of inmates in county lockup, expressed concerns about costs leading to service cutbacks.
“When we confuse expansion with the ability of people to meet their needs, we run into serious trouble,” said Mark-Anthony Clayton-Johnson, co-executive director of Dignity and Power Now, during the July 23 meeting when the board approved placing the measure on the ballot.
In an interview on Sept. 19, Clayton-Johnson said he still has many reservations about Measure G, including how redistricting of new supervisorial districts could effect the county’s Black population. He also said the process was rushed to a vote without meeting with local constituents for input.
“I said at that meeting I didn’t think it should be approved. I still feel the same way. I am not convinced,” he said.
The measure is a framework that will be filled in after the vote by meeting with the public and advocacy groups such as Clayton-Johnson’s, Horvath said. That includes figuring out who will serve on the Governance Reform Task Force as well as task forces drawing up new districts.
“It is creating the architecture for change,” Horvath said. “We will make sure members of the public and of diverse communities are heard.”
Shining a light on spending
Many advocacy groups have complained about the one-minute rule for speaking on a complex topic, such as the county’s budget. The measure requires individual department directors to air their sub-budgets and give the public the opportunity to comment. Currently, the public can only comment on the total budget.
“That is a critical component as to what people are excited about,” Horvath said. “They will finally have an understanding of what is in each department’s budget, and secondly they’ll have an opportunity to comment on all of it.”
Polling shows about 60% in favor of Measure G. And the same percentage said they were in favor of an elected CEO, she said. Increased transparency on budgeting, a stronger CEO and more open board motions is driving the favorable polls, she indicated.
Barger said transparency can be achieved without a charter amendment like Measure G. “Our current Board of Supervisors has the ability to enhance transparency and responsibility within our current structure,” she wrote.
Horvath said codifying changes with a charter amendment approved by voters makes them permanent. She believes they are long overdue. “County government has not been reformed since 1912. The way the county is currently structured is not working,” she said.
The measure has been endorsed by the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce; the L.A. County Democratic Party; Abundant Housing LA; American Jewish Committee Los Angeles; Dolores Huerta, civil rights and labor leader; Congressional representatives Tony Cardenas, Judy Chu, Robert Garcia, Ted Lieu, Brad Sherman and Norma Torres; the AAPI Equity Alliance and the SEIU 121RN, which represents 10,000 nurses and other medical professionals throughout the four counties.
Related Articles
LA City Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky faces threat of a recall effort
Housing’s worst crisis in decades reverberates through 2024 election
Harris-Trump debate was chance to embrace ‘uncertainty,’ learn at Orange County watch parties
In San Fernando Valley’s 44th Assembly District, voters will choose between two newcomers
Derek Tran says he’s fluent in Vietnamese. Rep. Michelle Steel’s campaign says he’s not.
Related links
LA County supervisors back a ballot measure to add 4 seats, elect a county CEO
Supervisors add charter amendments to November ballot that could change how LA County is governed
Can an Asian district be created if Board of Supervisors is expanded?
Is five enough? Some LA County Board of Supervisors propose expanding the board
Would more LA County supervisors, public financing of candidates improve local governance?