LOS ANGELES—Los Angeles County supervisors July 9 advanced a proposal for revamping county government, in part by expanding the Board of Supervisors from its current five members to nine and making the CEO an elected position.
The package of proposed County Charter changes, which ultimately needs approval from voters, advanced on a 3–0 vote, with Supervisors Holly Mitchell and Kathryn Barger abstaining. With the board vote, county attorneys will draft ordinances that will return to the board to be formally placed on the November ballot.
During a lengthy and sometimes impassioned discussion, Ms. Mitchell questioned whether the package of proposed changes had been fully vetted, and how the motion had settled on the number of nine for the expanded board. She also questioned whether the changes could, as the proposal contends, be enacted with no cost to taxpayers.
“I just think there’s too much at risk for us to take a bite of the apple that’s not absolutely ideal,” Ms. Mitchell said.
Ms. Barger expressed concern that the motion considered by the board Tuesday was brought forth by Supervisors Lindsey Horvath and Janice Hahn, with the involvement of Ms. Mitchell—who introduced the original motion in early 2023 that led to studies on ways of overhauling county government. Ms. Barger said Ms. Mitchell appeared to have been “cut out of the process,” and the process of introducing the proposed changes was “not transparent.”
In a statement after the vote, she also insisted that “bigger government doesn’t necessarily mean better government,” saying that regardless of size, board decisions “repeatedly get stuck in bureaucracy and an unwillingness to make tough decisions.”
The proposal OK'd by the board Tuesday also calls for the establishment of a Director of Budget and a Legislative Analyst, and creation of an independent ethics commission. Ms. Barger said she doesn’t believe the county has to wait for voter approval to create an ethics commission, and she plans to bring forward a motion next week to do so.
“I wholeheartedly support creating an Ethics Commission now, so we can immediately tackle improving both transparency and Board accountability,” Ms. Barger said.
Ms. Hahn said Tuesday transitioning from an appointed CEO to an elected CEO is “the most fundamental difference” in the proposal.
“For too long, this board has served both the legislative and executive power for the county,” Ms. Hahn said. “That may be the form of government we’re all most comfortable with, but it’s not what most experts agree is the best.”
The motion stated that an elected CEO would also be directly accountable to the voters and would significantly reduce the potential for parochialism, prioritizing the diverse regional population.
Ms. Horvath insisted that the proposed changes would not involve any sort of tax hike, saying, “We’re going to do this at no additional cost to taxpayers to implement. We will take our existing budget and reallocate the funds to implement the measure.”
Ms. Mitchell questioned that idea, noting that adding four more board members will involve significant infrastructure, and “I don’t see how we pay for that.”
“I just don’t see how it’s cost-neutral,” she said.
But Ms. Horvath insisted there could be reallocations of funding from other areas to cover any additional costs.
“There are a lot of places within the current county governance structure that we could get some of the resources to fund it,” she said.
Ms. Horvath and Ms. Hahn stressed that the proposal focuses on representation, efficiency and transparency in the governance structure for about 10 million residents of the county.
According to the motion by Ms. Horvath and Ms. Hahn, when the County Charter was adopted by the voters in 1912, the population was a little over 500,000, but the county now has 10 million residents and encompasses 88 incorporated cities within its border.
“As a result, Los Angeles County residents suffer deficits of representation and accountability,” according to the motion. “Each of the five-person Board of Supervisors, elected directly by voters, represents approximately 2 million constituents.”
The proposal also calls for a commission that would review the county Charter every 10 years, annual open departmental budget hearings and creation of a task force to oversee the implementations of the changes.
In a statement outlining the proposals last week, Ms. Horvath and Ms. Hahn noted, “We can no longer let a dated bureaucracy prevent us from more effectively addressing our homelessness crisis, making real progress on justice reform, or actualizing a government where Angelenos can meaningfully be at the decision-making table.”
In February of 2023, the board approved a motion by Ms. Mitchell and Ms. Horvath calling for a sweeping study of county governance, including a call for recommendations to improve public participation and representation of residents, possibly by expanding the size of the Board of Supervisors.
The concept of expanding the board has surfaced repeatedly over the years—as far back as 1926—but it has never gained traction. Voters have rejected the idea on eight different occasions.
But Ms. Hahn said she expects a more favorable reception from voters this time.
“We’ve talked to voters and they overwhelmingly support expanding the board in this moment,” she said.
Under the timeline proposed by the motion, the county CEO would become an elected position and a County Legislative Analyst and Director of Budget would be established by 2028, with board expansion planned for 2032.
In a related action Tuesday, the board approved a motion by Ms. Mitchell requesting a report within a week on the board’s authority to create committees that could review motions and letters before they are placed on the agenda of the full Board of Supervisors. Ms. Mitchell noted that motions proposing legislation can currently be placed directly on the supervisors’ agenda without a system of prior vetting or analysis that typically occurs with bills in Sacramento or in various other city or county governments.
Ms. Mitchell’s motion asked that the report include identification of any legal limitations on how many members of the board could sit on each committee and any legal limitations on the subject matter that could be considered by them.
Ms. Mitchell later posted on X that she abstained “because what we were asked to vote on today lacked important details and a focus on equity to support true governance reform. Too many questions remain unanswered. There was no data-informed reason for why 9 was chosen for board seats versus any other number. It is also not accurate to say it will not cost the public when there will be a cost to county services.
“I have consistently supported expanding the Board. However, the method we choose to achieve this matters. It should be informed by data and public input. We owe it to the millions of residents who rely on the County to get this right.”
