The L.A. County Board of Supervisors moved to place a charter amendment on the November ballot that would bring reforms intent on making the Board more trustworthy and inclusive. If passed, the ordinance would create an independent Ethics Commission by 2026, mandate an elected County Executive by 2028, and expand the Board from five supervisors to nine following the redistricting process in 2030.

The expansion of the Board would create smaller districts in the county, allowing more representation for Angelenos overall. On top of that, an Ethics Commission would create a new system of accountability that many bodies, including L.A. neighbor Orange County and the state of California, use to encourage fair political practices.

By electing the county’s County Executive instead of having them appointed by the board, not much would change in their day-to-day duties. One concern was the impact this would have on the county’s compliance with the Levine Act, which requires local officials to disclose any contribution of more than $250 that they have received from parties in matters involving a license, permit, or other entitlement.

However, county staff noted that the County Executive was already subject to the act, and the election of that official would allow a County Executive to defer his powers to another person if there was a personal conflict of interest involved.

The amendment indicates that there will be no financial burden on the county as a result of these changes — which would be significant due to the added salaries of the new supervisors and their staff.

Currently, the plan is to use what county staff refer to as “cost savings,” which are funds left over from budgets that can be carried over into the following year. One of these sources is the renewing services and supplies fund that each department receives each year, which Chief Executive Officer Fesia Davenport explained perpetually carried over savings in some county departments.

“You can take some of that savings from that underspend that we know happens every year and convert that,” Davenport said.

Westside Supervisor Lindsey Horvath — who introduced the plan alongside Supervisor Janice Hahn — expressed her strong feelings of urgency to bring these changes to the voters. She felt an impetus herself that change was necessary, saying that bogging the process down with too many consultants was counterproductive.

She argued that nothing monumental was being done here, arguing the amendment if approved would simply be the “Architecture for the structural change,” and would empower people to trust in the impact they have on their government. 

“This proposal reminds our communities that they hold true the power to shape a responsive government,” Horvath said. “It shows our young people that government can work for them, and only they have the power to change it.”

Hahn declared that these would be the biggest reforms in the county government since 1912, and says that she has heard this support echoed not by elected officials, but by her constituents.

“I am not talking about people who are in government or are policy wonks (sic),” Hahn said of the people supporting the amendment. “I am talking about my neighbors; people who I run into at the supermarket or Starbucks who have heard about this proposal and agree that it’s time to expand the Board of Supervisors.”

She also noted that she hoped that more districts would mean more diverse representation, particularly in the Asian American and Pacific Islander community.

However, there was a split in the room on this matter. Second District Supervisor Holly Mitchell, who represents a portion of the Westside, ended up voting against putting this on the ballot, but not because she was against the ideas proposed.

Mitchell was skeptical about the ability to fund these seats without drawing on money from elsewhere and felt that creating these districts could end up taking funding for positions and services from others that need it. 

She also believed that there was not enough time taken on this subject. Mitchell cited the lack of data informing the change to nine representatives given the exponential population increase in the county and feared preemptively committing “Possibly 10s of millions” to a major idea that has yet to be proven the correct way to go about expansion.

“The potential reforms proposed in this draft charter amendment will not necessarily achieve the goals of advancing transparency and more equitable outcomes for our constituents without reforms on how we govern,” Mitchell said.

Horvath acknowledged these issues, but argued that the Board shouldn’t “Let the perfect be the enemy of good.” She also argued that this wasn’t about the structure of the amendment itself, but more about allowing voters to decide if expansion is what they want.

“This proposal is not perfect,” Horvath acknowledged. “I appreciate that this is difficult to accept; I would also say our current form is imperfect.”

With Fifth District Supervisor Kathryn Barger showing similar concerns to Mitchell, the deciding vote was in the hands of First District Supervisor Hilda Solis — who would not be in office at the deadline of the Board expansion in 2030. She also expressed support for the ordinance and had a belief that enough savings could be found in the many departments and commissions in the county, and about her belief in the need for better representation and responsiveness for Angelenos despite the potential obstacles.

“It’s time for that to happen,” Solis said of the expansion, “and we should take that and embrace it because Democracy is hard.”

The vote to put the ordinance on the November ballot passed 3-2 with Mitchell and Barger as the dissenting votes.

Image is the official emblem of Los Angeles County.