Proposal to Expand LA County Board One Step Closer to November Ballot

The county government proposals passed 3-0, with Supervisors Kathryn Barger (L) and Holly Mitchell abstaining. (Jill McLaughlin/The Epoch Times; Patrick T. Fallon/AFP via Getty Images)

Following a lengthy and heated discussion at its weekly meeting, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted on July 9 to advance proposed amendments to the County Charter, including an expansion of the board from five to nine members and the creation of an elected executive position.

Supervisors Kathryn Barger and Holly Mitchell abstained, citing a rushed process and lack of transparency, as well as potential costs.

“This reform proposal isn’t a panacea. Whether our board stays at five members or grows to nine or more, our elected body has a responsibility to lead responsibly, effectively, and transparently,” Ms. Barger said in a statement following the motion.

“Bigger government doesn’t necessarily mean better government—but the matter will be in the public’s hands so they can decide that for themselves come November.”

The reform package would also establish an independent ethics commission, a director of budget and management, and a legislative analyst. Pending a final board vote in August, the proposals will go before voters in the November general election.

Over the past half century, there have been multiple state legislative and ballot measures to expand the board and introduce an elected county executive, but all have been rejected by voters.

Authored by Supervisors Lindsey Horvath and Janice Hahn, the current motion is billed as a long-overdue reform aimed at increasing representation in a county where a diverse population has far outgrown its original governing structure, with five supervisors now representing more than 10 million people. The five-member board was established in 1852, when the population was less than 10,000.

Ms. Horvath and Ms. Hahn also point to Los Angeles’s anomalous position among other large metropolitan areas across the country, many of which—including San Francisco, with 11 county supervisors representing 875,000 people, and Florida’s Miami-Dade, with 13 county commissioners representing 2.7 million—have more than twice the number of county representatives with a fraction of L.A.’s population.

During Tuesday’s meeting, Ms. Hahn noted a renewed interest in expanding beyond the five districts after the county’s 2021 redistricting process.

“I think a lot of people after that process realized how difficult it really was for this individual commission, or any commission, to carve up 10 million people trying to keep together communities of interest in a pie that only had five slices,” she said.

‘Getting Things Done’

All five supervisors have at some point expressed support for potential expansion but Ms. Barger and Ms. Mitchell questioned many arguments put forward in favor of the motion—as well as the process that landed it before the board, which they characterized as rushed and lacking transparency.

During the meeting Ms. Barger said adding supervisor seats won’t address the underlying bureaucratic issues and lack of political will to make difficult decisions.

“I believe it’s more a reflection on people elected than on the structure. And the lack of getting things done is on us. ... That is not going to be solved by a ballot measure increasing the board. That will be by finally making decisions that need to be made.”

Many among the dozens of speakers during public comment praised the motion as a way to increase accountability and representation for communities of color and other marginalized groups, including residents of unincorporated areas.

“L.A. County is a diverse community and we need to have representation that reflects the diversity of all our communities,” Henry Lo, a Monterey Park council member, said during public comment.

But Ms. Mitchell, who represents the 2nd District, questioned how proposed reforms would impact how “true equity is experienced and manifested in terms of allocation of resources.”

In a statement after the motion, she explained her abstention as a rejection of “sweeping changes” that were not “thoughtfully presented,” and that lacked data-informed reasons for expanding to nine seats, countywide community engagement, and an “honest” fiscal analysis of the changes.

While Ms. Horvath said the proposals would not incur additional costs for taxpayers, both Ms. Mitchell and Ms. Barger questioned that statement, while Ms. Barger worried about the impact changes might have on underserved residents of unincorporated areas.

“I am very uncomfortable with the notion that it’s being billed as cost neutral,” Ms. Mitchell said, based on her four years of “delving deep into this county budget.”

An Elected Executive

“As we have faced and continue to face numerous crises on multiple fronts—the COVID-19 pandemic, massive wildfires, homelessness, criminal justice reform, and climate change to name a few—the lack of strong, elected executive leadership has impacted our ability to address those challenges as nimbly and efficiently as possible,” the motion argues.

However, Ms. Barger said she was concerned that an elected executive would politicize an office that should remain nonpartisan, while Ms. Mitchell suggested the role of an elected CEO “who has the true power of the pursestrings,” needed further articulation.

The county currently has an appointed CEO, who manages strategy and operations for the board, including oversight of its $46 billion budget.

“The proposed charter amendment gives a significant majority of power and discretion over county funding to an elected county executive. And my concern ... is that it may jeopardize the balanced way the board is supposed to work in order to benefit all residents of L.A. County,” Ms. Barger said.

Fernando Guerra, director for the Center for the Study of Los Angeles at Loyola Marymount University, who presented research on the reform efforts to the board, argued a balanced executive role was essential to democratic governments.

“This is the largest jurisdiction in the world ... that doesn’t have an executive or balance in terms of checks and balances,” Mr. Guerra said, stressing that such a position would make supervisors’ work easier and more efficient.

In a terse back-and-forth, Ms. Horvath responded to criticisms from Ms. Barger and Ms. Mitchell, suggesting the issue at heart was a fear of change.

“I think what we’re really struggling with is whether we keep the status quo, because it’s what we know, or we try something new that moves us in a different direction,” Ms. Horvath said.

Ms. Barger suggested an independent ethics body should be established regardless of the reform package.

“It’s not going to guarantee you don’t have bad politicians ... whether baked into a charter or done on this floor.”

To that end, she said she plans to introduce a separate motion next week to create an ethics office, “so we can begin this process now and lead by example.”

The reforms would be implemented over the next several years—with offices for County Executive Director, Director of Budget Management and County Legislative Analyst established by 2028, and new supervisors elected in 2032.

The independent ethics commission would be established in 2026, and a task force to implement the reforms pending voter approval.