Support: Yes for Measure G for a more functional and representative Los Angeles County government

Los Angeles County is the densest local jurisdiction in the country, with the largest population (over 10 million people) and the largest budget ($43 billion). The responsibilities of his government are enormous.

However, it has the same form of elected leadership it had 174 years ago when it was created, and the same as other California counties today that have a fraction of the population and budget: a five-member Board of Supervisors with a rotating chairman and no independently elected executive. The county’s three elected officials – the sheriff, the district attorney and the assistant judge – operate in their own spheres.

Los Angeles County government underestimates and underestimates its citizens.

Measure G on the Nov. 5 ballot could change that. It would expand the Board of Supervisors to nine, reducing the size of huge districts and giving county residents a greater say. This would create an independently elected executive – in effect, a county mayor – that would be able to respond to challenges and crises more quickly than the board. It would create a district ethics commission for the first time.

The measure prohibits the county from spending more money on the expanded government than on the current government.

These changes are long overdue. The Times recommends a “yes” vote on Measure G.

The measure was proposed by Supervisors Lindsey Horvath and Janice Hahn in July, just a few months before the election. Critics say outside analysts have had too little time to study the measure and consider alternatives.

The criticism is understandable. It would be nice if this measure came from the charter reform commission that the city of Los Angeles used (actually there were two at the same time) in the 1990s to update its governance framework. Even now, the city is organizing a new commission to recommend changes to the charter – including a larger City Council.

However, the county has shown no interest in organizing such a body or other reforms. After the city adopted a new charter a quarter-century ago, many reformers who were involved in or observed the city process came before the Board of Supervisors to urge the county to do the same. The management made a fool of themselves and did nothing.

And it hasn’t done much since then. One of only two significant changes occurred in 2007, when regulators tried to give an appointed chief executive more direct authority over county operations. They quickly took most of it back.

The second came in 2022, when they asked voters to give them even more power: removing the elected sheriff. The sheriff was unpopular at the time, and voters agreed to the change.

There have been previous attempts at reform forced on supervisory authorities by state legislators or voter initiatives. In 2000, they sent voters a ballot to expand the board, but only at the insistence of the Legislature. The measure failed.

This year, the board voted 3-2 to put Measure G on the ballot. This is an important development. Given the board’s poor track record in terms of separation of powers, postponing decisions until the next election does not seem like a good solution.

The new format would assign executive power to one person, as the U.S. Constitution, every state’s constitution and most major cities do. The supervisors’ job would be to legislate, check the executive branch to hold that person accountable, and provide services to the unincorporated portions of the county – areas not represented by city government.

In other words, Measure G would finally bring the same kind of checks and balances to the county that have been a cornerstone of good government throughout the nation’s history.

Is nine the “right” number of supervisors? It’s a fair question, but it doesn’t require much hand-wringing. That’s better than five. This would increase citizens’ chances to elect leaders who reflect their values ​​and political goals. Note that as the county’s population became increasingly Latino, there was no Latino member on the board until it lost a district boundary lawsuit that discriminated against Latino voters. Even now, in a county that is almost 50% Latino, the five-member board has just one. A larger council would be more representative not only of the county’s ethnic diversity, but also of its diverse infrastructure, geographic and political needs.

If nine is still not enough, there is a greater likelihood that a district government with greater accountability and an ethics commission than the current one will pave the way for further improvements, including more seats.

Or maybe a larger board, but without a mayor? Bad idea. This would only deepen government dysfunction, not fix it. Checks and balances are key, and the Board of Supervisors has shown it will not willingly relinquish executive power.

The maddening irony of the current county government is that, contrary to popular belief, most elected officials work hard and do a good job. However, they are hampered by a structure that encourages stagnation and is ill-equipped to address issues such as homelessness, poverty, inequality and injustice – the very challenges that are assigned to county government. Measure G is the solution.