THE BUZZ: MORE SEATS AT THE TABLE — First, there were “five little kings.” Now, there are “five little queens.” And soon, Los Angeles County voters will decide if the ranks of the powerful Board of Supervisors could swell to nine. The board on Tuesday placed a measure on the November ballot for the most sweeping structural changes to county governance in more than 100 years. The proposal has three main components: expanding the size of the board from five to nine supervisors; creating a county executive position that is elected by the voters; and forming a new independent ethics commission. It’s not often that politicians would willingly back a plan that would effectively dilute their power. The perch of Los Angeles supervisor is widely seen as one of the most quietly powerful in the state. Each district represents roughly 2 million people — more than the populations of 14 states and the District of Columbia. Combined, they hold legislative, executive and quasi-judicial powers and control a budget that tops $45 billion. But Board Chair Lindsey P. Horvath said that the county couldn’t be effective if it continued to “gatekeep” its power. “I'm the newest member of the Board of Supervisors, and so I'm looking at this with fresh eyes, and it is clear to me that how we are doing the business of the county is not optimal,” Horvath told Playbook. It's worth noting the measure has a long time delay for implementation — the new county executive office would be established in 2028, and the new board seats would go into effect following the 2030 redistricting process — which lessens the impact for most of the current board members. “That usually improves the chances, or, let's say, reduces the intensity of the opposition,” said Raphael Sonenshein, executive director of the Haynes Foundation. The motion, which was introduced by Horvath and Supervisor Janice Hahn, got a decisive third vote from Supervisor Hilda Solis, the board’s only Latina, who said that expanding the number of seats would better ensure more diverse representation. That’s not to say the support was unanimous. Supervisors Holly Mitchell and Kathryn Barger voted against the county charter amendment, citing particular alarm about the new county executive role. (The county currently has a CEO that is appointed — and can be fired — by the board.) Mitchell laid out a litany of concerns to Playbook: that the countywide executive would not be bound to term limits; that the expanded board would have less autonomy in meeting the unique needs of their districts; and that the newer, presumably more diverse supervisors “will be more like figureheads due to the Board’s weakened ability to hold department heads accountable since they will not have the direct ability to hire or fire and less oversight over the County budget.“ LA County has mulled reform before. In fact, an independent commission convened by the Haynes Foundation recommended this structure — an elected executive and nine-member board — nearly fifty years ago. But previous attempts have failed, either under opposition from the supervisors or rejection by the voters. Proponents say this comprehensive approach, instead of voting on piecemeal changes, improves their odds. And in Los Angeles, the desire for change is in the air, particularly after a leaked recording scandal in City Hall, on the heels of a string of corruption controversies, helped feed the sense that local government in the Southland needs some serious fixing. In City Hall, big promises of government reform have led to mixed results: Independent redistricting on the city level will be up for voter approval on the November ballot, but an ethics overhaul left advocates feeling disappointed, and there’s been no progress on proposals to expand the size of the council. The county also seemed to be taking a more deliberative approach. But after waiting a year and a half for a report on possible reforms, Horvath and Hahn decided to plow ahead with a package of proposals — despite objections from skeptical ethics advocates and public employee unions and to the visible frustration of Mitchell and Barger, who said the board was acting too hastily. “What the proponents did here is they flipped the script,” Sonenshein said. “They said let's put forward the big picture first … and then, in effect, spend a few years really ironing out the details. Because if you don't do it that way, it'll be years before you get to the big proposal, and the energy will decline.” Now, Horvath is hoping that momentum will translate to success on the November ballot. “I am not afraid to go to the voters to say, ‘Hey, do you think it's time for us to do things differently?’” Horvath said. “I'm pretty certain I know what their answer is going to be. But I think that's a question that they deserve to get to answer themselves.” GOOD MORNING. Happy Wednesday. Thanks for waking up with Playbook. You can text us at 916-562-0685 — save it as “CA Playbook” in your contacts. Or drop us a line at lkorte@politico.com and dgardiner@politico.com, or on X — @DustinGardiner and @Lara_Korte. WHERE’S GAVIN? Nothing official announced.
| 
No comments:
Post a Comment