Measure G on our ballot this time is a package of 13 proposals to make a major overhaul of LA County’s “constitution.” The most well known of these is the expansion of the of the Board of Supervisors from 5 “little queens” to 9. Supervisor Mitchell supports consideration of Board expansion. After all, the current Board size dates from a time when the entire LA County population was only about half a million. Today, each Supervisor represents a couple of million residents.
But Measure G goes on to 12 more proposals. And Measure G is an all or nothing package.
Another of the 13 proposals will replace the County CEO, now an appointed technocrat, with a super-powerful politician who can veto any part of the County’s $46 Billion budget and has no term limits.
Measure G goes on to create two new positions, a new task force, and a new commission. And best of all, this additional administrative burden, can be had practically for free. (Read my lips. Measure G says “No new taxes.”)
The proponents do not say which specific County programs will be cut to fund these administrative costs, only that the costs may only be covered using existing County funding sources. (I hope they will not cover them by cutting the budget for maintenance of restrooms on the beach. The one on Toes Beach has been out of service for months.)
Proponents do not say how they settled on the number 9. Could it have something to do with an affinity of JRR Tolkien’s 9 Ringwraiths or the 9 members of the Fellowship of the Ring? How will new District lines be drawn? Will minority voices be diluted in the process?
And why the rush? The first intimation of this “big bang” of a County constitutional amendment was in early July. Shouldn’t a change of this magnitude require something like community engagement?
Should the voters reject G and send the supervisors back to the drawing board?
Before you vote, why not click below to check out this very informative Community Teach-In from LA Forward.
Here is Supervisor Mitchell’s statement:
“I abstained from voting on the motion to present a charter amendment to the public to expand the Board to nine and to create a countywide elected officer position because these sweeping changes were not thoughtfully presented. What we were asked to vote on today lacked a focus on equity and details to support true governance reform. When I asked about the breadth of outreach that led to this motion being presented, there was no proof of true community engagement that included input from Second District residents or residents from throughout the County. There was no data-informed reason for why the number nine was chosen for board seats versus any other number. We have no assessment of the fiscal feasibility of these changes being implemented and what it would potentially cost the County; an honest assessment to the voters is paramount. Questions on who will be able to serve on the Governance Reform Task Force remain unanswered despite this task force being tasked with ushering in governance reform for the largest County in the nation.
“There are too many critical unknowns that will only further inequities and undermine the efforts of the County to be truly transparent and accountable to the public. Last year, we unanimously agreed as a Board to take a thoughtful, data-informed approach to improving the County’s governance structure. We decided on an independent entity to recommend not just how many seats should be added to the Board for a public vote but also how the County can improve the process by which it creates policies that impact millions of lives daily. Bypassing this process to rush to the ballot box in November doesn’t solve the root of our governance problems.
“I welcome an expansion of the Board and changes to how we govern that lead to more openness and input from the public. The pathway to achieving this is in the details. Our communities deserve an intentional charter amendment that isn’t driven by what one or any Supervisor thinks is best but by what truly is best for the greater good of the public.”