Los Angeles County is the largest local jurisdiction in the country, with the largest population (more than 10 million people) and the largest budget ($43 billion). The government’s responsibility is enormous.
But it has the same form of leadership it had 174 years ago when it was created, and is similar to other California counties today with a fraction of the population and budget: a five-member Board of Supervisors with rotating seats, and no independently elected executive. Three countywide elected officials — the sheriff, district attorney and assessor — operate in their respective areas.
LA County government is under representing and under serving its people.
Measure G on the Nov. 5 ballot would change that. It would expand the Board of Supervisors to nine, shrink the size of the massive district and give county residents more voice. It will create an independent elected executive – in effect, the district mayor – who can respond to challenges and crises faster than the Board. This will be the first time to create a county ethics commission.
The measure prohibits counties from spending more on expanded government than they currently have.
This change is long overdue. The Times recommends a Yes vote on county Measure G.
The measure was proposed by Supervisors Lindsey Horvath and Janice Hahn in July, just months before the election. Critics argue that there is little time for outside analysts to study the measure and consider alternatives.
The criticism is understandable. It would be nice if the move came out of a charter reform commission of the type the city of Los Angeles used (actually two, at once) in the 1990s to update its governing framework. Even now, the city is organizing a new commission to recommend charter changes — including a larger City Council.
But the district has shown little interest in organizing such bodies or otherwise reforming itself. After the city adopted a new charter a quarter of a century ago, many reformers who participated in or observed the city process appeared before the Board of Supervisors called on the county to do the same thing. The board scoffed and did nothing.
And little has been done in the years since. One of the two significant changes came in 2007 when supervisors tried to give an appointed chief executive more direct control over district operations. They quickly took a lot back.
The other comes in 2022 when he asks voters to give him more power: remove the elected sheriff. The sheriff at the time was unpopular, and voters agreed to a change.
There were earlier stabs at reform, forced on the supervisor by the state legislature or voter initiative. In 2000, they sent voters to expand the council, but only under pressure from the Legislature. The measure failed.
This year the council voted 3 to 2 to put Measure G on the ballot. It is an important development. Given the poor record of the Board that shows power, put off the decision for another election does not seem like a very good option.
The new format would allocate executive power to one individual, just like the US Constitution, each state constitution, and the largest cities. The supervisor’s job is to make laws, hold executives accountable, and deliver services to unincorporated parts of the county – areas not represented by city governments.
In other words, Measure G would finally bring the same kinds of checks and balances to districts that have been the bedrock of good government throughout the state’s history.
Is nine the “right” number of supervisors? It’s a fair question but it doesn’t require a lot of hands. It’s better than five. This will increase the opportunity for citizens to elect leaders who reflect their values and policy goals. It’s important to remember that as the county’s population became increasingly Latino, the board had no Latino members until it lost a lawsuit over district lines that discriminated against Latino voters. Even today, in a county that is nearly 50% Latino, the five-member council is only one. A larger board will be more representative, not only of the district’s ethnic diversity but also of different infrastructure, geographic and political needs.
If nine is still too few, the county government with more accountability and ethics commissions than it currently has will pave the way for more improvements, including more seats.
How about a bigger place, but without a mayor? Bad idea. That will only exacerbate government dysfunction without fixing it. Checks and balances are key, and the Board of Trustees has shown it will not willingly cede executive authority.
The terrible irony about county government today is that, contrary to popular belief, most elected officials work hard and do a good job. But they are hampered by structures that invite stasis and are not suited to solve problems such as homelessness, poverty, injustice, injustice – exactly the challenges assigned to the county government. Size G is the way forward.
