Without a doubt, the most controversial element within Measure G, which ushers in massive changes to how Los Angeles County government works, is the election of a county chief executive.
Currently, the CEO, who figures the budget of close to $50 billion and oversees all county department heads in the largest county in the nation, is appointed by the five elected Board of Supervisors. In contrast, an elected county executive officer will be voted in by 5.8 million county registered voters beginning in the fall of 2028.
He or she will have control over the budget, be able to hire and fire department heads, possibly hold veto power over Board motions, set the agenda for the county and wield influence over 10 million constituents like an elected county mayor. This also should give the CEO a front seat with the governor and even the president of the United States to advocate for aid — especially after a natural disaster such as a wildfire or earthquake.
“I will say, the elected L.A. County CEO will be the most important, most powerful locally elected official in the entire country,” excluding the governor of California and the president of the United States, said Fernando Guerra, professor of political science and Chicana/o Latina/o studies at Loyola Marymount University and director of the Center for the Study of Los Angeles at LMU.
“This will be the top of the pyramid of power in local government in Los Angeles County and in the country,” he added.
Voters passed Measure G in November 2024. The vote was historic, ushering in reforms that had been attempted in past ballot measures that failed to gain enough votes.
Besides electing the county executive officer, it will add four county supervisors — to make nine starting in 2032. It also adds an independent Ethics Commission and Office of Ethics Compliance, a County Legislative Analyst and a Director of Budget and Management. The budget manager will be appointed by the new elected CEO.
While Supervisor Lindsey Horvath and Janice Hahn, who co-authored the motion that went before the voters, say the main goal is more transparency in county government, there is much more to it. Supervisors Kathryn Barger and Holly Mitchell voted against placing the measure on the ballot, with Barger citing the politicizing of the CEO Office.
Will CEO and Board of Supervisors clash?
Over the last three months, and most recently in special meetings in August, the newly created 13-member Measure G Governance Reform Task Force (GRTF) has been meeting to discuss its ad hoc committee’s “preliminary considerations” on the role, powers and responsibilities of a first-ever elected county CEO.
One sticking point is who gets to choose the staff for the new CEO Office?
“An elected executive is a political position. They will want to bring in their own staff,” said Sarah Sadhwani, vice chair. “That elected CEO will have the flexibility to set up an office as they choose.”
Board member Derek Steele asked if a CEO loses re-election, that means the county CEO would leave as well as his staff, to be chosen by the new elected CEO. This could bring instability and confusion to the county, he said.
“So, you have a culture established by a county elected executive and then a new one comes in and there is a whole new order. How do we protect the continuity that comes from county government?” worried Steele, during an Aug. 7 meeting.
Some members said that is simply the nature of politics. New administrations set their direction and pick their cabinet, staff, etc.
“How do you take politics out of something political?” interjected Brian Calderon Tabatabai, a GRTF member.
Others on the task force asked about the CEO vying for support of constituent groups, something the members of Board of Supervisors make a priority. The GRTF indicated the CEO will definitely stump for support and votes, as will the supervisors.
Does this create a conflict between the two political branches?
Hsieh said the ad hoc committee’s talking points seem to shift power to reach out to voters and to legislators in Sacramento and Washington, D.C. from the Board to the CEO. “It wasn’t specifically covered in Measure G,” he noted. “Ultimately the elected CEO needs to be out there with his constituents.”
He suggested the task force put in recommendations in its final report, due Sept. 9, that could reduce the threat of duplication of political activity. He said most often, he hopes the Board and CEO would work together on advocacy. But if there’s discord, the CEO would get the upper hand.
Guerra said the two entities fighting it out among voters is not a bad thing.
“I think that is a healthy democracy,” he said. “The CEO would have to be responsive to the constituents.” Now, the appointed CEO only needs to convince three of the five supervisors to win the battle.
Sadhwani said there must be a way to make these two entities come together, for the public good. “How can we make it better for them, the residents of Los Angeles County?” she asked. “Who should they call about a pothole?”
Many of the 88 cities wrote letters to the task force, saying they want to have access to the new CEO, especially those who contract with the county for fire protection and law enforcement, or rely on the county for homeless services, public health and emergency management.
“Providing greater clarity regarding the CEO’s responsibility to engage with cities on these shared operational issues would strengthen the governance framework envisioned by Measure G,” wrote La Verne Mayor Tim Hepburn.
While academicians see the need for a county elected leader to be in the forefront, not everyone agrees the injection of a political office into county executive government will provide better services or open up clear communication channels to the residents.
“It will mean a lot more power in the hands of one person,” said Tom Hogen-Esch, professor in the Department of Political Science at Cal State Northridge. Hogen-Esch has studied county and city governments for nearly 25 years.
“It could potentially create more power struggles between the executive and legislative branch (Board of Supervisors),” he said.
Hogen-Esch said the devil is in the details. These will be included in the Sept. 9 recommendations on the CEO’s role in a report from the GRTF to the Board of Supervisors.
“There will be a lot of details to be worked out. There could also be litigation that stresses out the arc of this massive transformation happening in Los Angeles County,” he said.
Aiming for a fix
Agree or disagree, the elements in Measure G are bold.
“I am impressed that the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors would vote to put this on the ballot. Because (with elected CEO), you are creating like a strong mayoral system, as in New York City, or even as a governor. The power would flow from the Board to the CEO,” said Hogen-Esch.
“I can’t think of any instance in U.S. history where a government took power away from itself,” he added.
That power currently includes two million people per supervisor, more than most state legislative or congressional districts. The county’s budget is bigger than that of Ireland or New Zealand, he said. A county population of 10 million is larger in population than 40 U.S. states.
But that power is currently divided among five supervisors. Or as Guerra puts it, a five-headed hydra as in Greek mythology that works sometimes, but often struggles.
Guerra’s Center for the Study of Los Angeles received a grant to look into the changes. He also has a contract with the county’s current office of CEO to research other counties in California and other states on how their system of government works. That was presented in a report to the GRTF on Aug. 21, but not by Guerra.
His personal view is that the changes in Measure G will make government more fair, transparent and effective. Now, the Board of Supervisors controls legislative and executive branch powers. An elected CEO will take over most of the executive branch powers, creating a needed separation of powers.
This corrects the flaws in the county government structure, he said.
“When most people think of government, they think of an executive, whether a president, governor or mayor. The county of Los Angeles is an anomaly where they don’t have an elected executive,” he said.
“Name me one organization you know of, for profit, or nonprofit, that has five co-CEOs and tell me if that works,” he asked rhetorically.
Candidate qualities
For the political animal, this change creates a huge opportunity.
The person elected could become a future candidate for U.S. Senate or even president of the United States, political watchers say.
“The CEO will become much more of a political position than what we’ve ever seen in local California government history,” said Hogen-Esch. “It will be a stepping stone for higher office, maybe even president.”
A candidate must have two very different sets of skills: A vision to catch the voters’ interest and win an election and also the skills to govern a wide bureaucracy. That for sure is a unique one-two combination needed in one person, Guerra said.
He referenced President Donald Trump, who has skills to draw in voters, but he has failed to build consensus.
A populist candidate, like a Trump, would not fit, he said.
“A populist would have very little ability to raise revenue beyond property taxes or sales taxes,” he said. “You cannot sell treasuries. And you cannot enact tariffs against Orange County.”