LA County Supervisors to Weigh Efforts to Implement Measure G Reforms

Los Angeles, CA.-With voters approving an overhaul in the governance of Los Angeles County, the Board of Supervisors Tuesday will take initial steps to begin implementing the changes, beginning with a debate over the makeup of a task forced that’ll be charged with overseeing the process.

Among the provisions of Measure G is an expansion of the Board of Supervisors from five to nine members following the 2030 census, and making the county CEO an elected position by 2028. The measure also includes the creation of the positions of county legislative analyst and director of budget and management.

Measure G also formalizes the establishment of an Ethics Commission and a compliance officer by 2026. The Board of Supervisors has already begun the process of creating an Ethics Commission, but its existence will now be codified in the charter, along with the establishment of the compliance officer post, protecting it from being disbanded in future absent another public vote.

The measure also had a series of other provisions, including the creation of a commission that would review the county charter every 10 years; requiring all county departments to present their annual budgets during public meetings; requiring all Board of Supervisors agenda items to be posted at least 120 hours prior to a regular meting; authorizing suspension of an elected official charged with a felony relating to a violation of officials duties; and requiring that the changes be made with no additional cost to taxpayers.

Board of Supervisors Chair Lindsey Horvath, who helped spearhead Measure G, introduced a motion that will be heard at Tuesday’s board meeting aimed at beginning the process of implementing various changes included in the ballot item.

She said that the county can immediately implement the provisions requiring open departmental budget hearings and barring former county officials from lobbying the county for at least two years from the time they leave county employment.

Horvath also proposed a blueprint for the establishment of a task force charged with overseeing the changes, however, fellow Supervisor Holly Mitchell has offered a competing proposal. Mitchell opposed placing Measure G on the ballot, questioning its costs and whether its provisions had been properly vetted.

In her motion, Horvath proposed a 13-member task force, including five people appointed by individual members of the Board of Supervisors, three “labor-appointed members” and five “at-large” members chosen by the five representatives appointed by the individual supervisors. Those five “at-large” members would include: one person from the business sector, one representing interests of municipal governments in the county, one representing interests of unincorporated areas, one representing community organizations, and one with “significant experience or knowledge in public sector ethics.”

Mitchell, however, is proposing a 15-member task force, with each county Supervisor appointing two members — one of them a labor representative from the county workforce and the other a member of the supervisor’s district. Those 10 people would then be responsible for selecting five more at-large members of the task force, with each of those people subject to a four-fifths vote that includes affirmative votes from at least one member chosen by each supervisor.

Mitchell said her proposal mirrors the process used for recent charter review commission in New York City, King County in Washington and Miami Dade County.

In placing Measure G before voters, Horvath and Supervisor Janice Hahn argued that the County Charter was adopted in 1912, when the population was about 500,000. But the county now has 10 million residents and encompasses 88 cities within its border, yet the Board of Supervisors still has only five members.

Mitchell and Supervisor Kathryn Barger opposed the measure, saying the changes were being rushed forward, and questioned if nine would be the proper number of members on an expanded board.

They had also opposed the concept of an elected CEO, saying in a ballot argument against the measure that the person would lack accountability, serving with no term limits while endowed with the power to control the county’s massive budget and weakening the Board of Supervisors’ authority over the budget and the ability to hold department heads accountable.

Opponents also questioned the notion that the changes could be implemented without any new costs to taxpayers, given its creation of new elected positions and county offices.

Los Angeles Board of Supervisors - Photo courtesy of https://www.facebook.com/LACountyBOS/