There will soon be a ‘mayor of L.A. County.' How much power should come with the job?
It will be the elected chief executive.
'It's probably going to be the second most powerful position in the state next to the governor,' said former West Covina Mayor Brian Calderón Tabatabai, one of 13 people now tasked with deciding just how much power should come with the post.
This week, the final five members were named to the county's 'governance reform task force.' The former politicians, union leaders, advocates and business owners will make recommendations on how to move forward with Measure G, the sprawling ballot measure approved by voters in November to overhaul L.A. County government.
Measure G was massive in scope but scant on details. That means members of the task force — five of whom were picked directly by supervisors — must figure out the contours of a new county ethics commission by 2026. They'll also help expand the five-person board to nine by 2032.
Perhaps most consequentially, they will have to hammer out the powers of the new chief executive, an elected official who will represent 10 million county residents — a position that some task force members don't even think should exist.
'I'm extremely concerned about the elected CEO,' said former Duarte Mayor John Fasana, a task force member. 'At this point, we have to try and find a way to make it work.'
Rewind to last November's election. The elected chief executive position was, by far, the most controversial part of the overhaul, and a bitter pill to swallow for some who were otherwise eager to see the Board of Supervisors expanded and ethics rules strengthened.
Currently, the chief executive, a role filled by Fesia Davenport, is appointed by the supervisors and works under them. She takes the first stab at the county budget and wrangles department heads, putting out whatever fires are erupting.
It's not a glamorous job — many people don't know it exists — but the chief executive, more than any other county leader, is responsible for keeping the place running smoothly.
With the passage of Measure G, the position will become a political one, beholden only to voters. Some have dubbed it the 'mayor of L.A. County.'
Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, who spearheaded the overhaul, said that one of the most influential positions in local government will now come out of the shadows and be directly accountable to voters.
Supervisor Kathryn Barger has been deeply skeptical, warning that it will diminish the supervisors' power and politicize a position that functions best behind the scenes. Supervisor Holly Mitchell had similar hesitations, as did some county employee unions.
Now, they've got to make it work.
Derek Hsieh, who heads the Assn. for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs as well as chairs the Coalition of County Unions, said both labor groups opposed Measure G and the creation of the elected chief executive. But now, as a member of the task force, he vowed to 'bring success to that decision.'
In interviews, some task force members — both supporters of Measure G and opponents — said they plan to tread carefully.
'I've heard murmuring, like what if we get someone like an [Alex] Villanueva running amok and burning bridges unnecessarily,' said Marcel Rodarte, who heads the California Contract Cities Assn., referring to the bombastic former sheriff. 'It's a possibility it could happen. I want to make sure that those nine supervisors have the ability to rein in the CEO.'
Rodarte and his colleagues will take the first stab at creating checks and balances. Should the chief executive be able to hire and fire department heads? What are the veto powers? How much control will the executive have over the county's purse strings? Currently, the position has no term limits — should that change?
Sara Sadhwani, a politics professor at Pomona College and a task force member, said she's already hearing concerns about the lack of term limits, which would put the chief executive on an uneven footing with supervisors, who must leave after three four-year terms. She said the task force may consider a change in state law that would permit term limits.
'Looking at the federal government, there need to be very real constraints on executive power,' she said. 'There has to be a healthy friction.'
Sadhwani said she's expecting some pushback to parts of the proposal from county supervisors, who may be less than pleased to see their power siphoned away.
'We can imagine there are board members who do not want to see those powers move to an executive branch,' she said.
Rob Quan, a transparency advocate, said he'll be watching closely.
'What I would like to see is this task force have the freedom and independence and insulation to come up with good, thoughtful recommendations,' he said. 'What I don't want to see is these supervisors using their commissioners as gladiators.'
— THREE-RING CIRCUS: L.A. city and county officials spent the past week in U.S. Dist. Judge David O. Carter's courtroom — either monitoring or participating in a multi-day evidentiary hearing on the city's settlement agreement with the L.A. Alliance for Human Rights. The stakes are high: the Alliance wants to place the city's homelessness programs into receivership, effectively removing control from Mayor Karen Bass, on the grounds that the city is not meeting its legal obligations for providing such services. The city says it has made its best efforts to comply with the agreement.
So who was in the room? City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto monitored the hearing at various points. City Administrative Officer Matt Szabo was grilled on the stand over multiple days. Dr. Estemaye Agonafer, deputy mayor for homelessness, was sometimes prickly during three-plus hours of questioning.
— WHEN DOES IT END? The testimony in the Alliance case is expected to spill into next week, although it's not clear how many more days are needed. Carter, who has remained unusually muted during this week's proceedings, declared at one point: 'Time's not a concern.'
— READY TO MOVE ON: Speaking of homelessness, Councilmember Tim McOsker is looking to bring an end to Bass' emergency declaration on homelessness, rescinding the mayor's power to award no-bid contracts and lease buildings without council approval. The move comes two and a half years after Bass declared an emergency. Councilmember Monica Rodriguez, an outspoken critic of the city's homeless programs, also has been a longtime supporter of terminating the emergency.
— WAGE WARRIORS: A coalition of airlines, hotels and concession companies at Los Angeles International Airport filed paperwork Thursday to force a citywide vote on a new ordinance hiking the minimum wage of hotel and airport workers to $30 per hour by 2028.
— FEELING POWERLESS: Former Animal Services General Manager Staycee Dains said in a series of interviews with The Times that she felt powerless to solve entrenched problems at her agency, including severe understaffing and mistreatment of shelter animals. Dains said she was repeatedly told by the city's personnel department that she couldn't fire problem employees. And she clashed with a union that represents shelter employees.
— MONEY IN THE MAIL: Many residents who lost their homes in the January wildfires should have received a tax refund after their damaged or destroyed properties were reassessed. But about 330 checks are in limbo after postal workers tried unsuccessfully to deliver them to vacant or destroyed homes.
— NO CHARGES: A former L.A. County probation official who was accused by more than two dozen women of sexually abusing them when they were minors will not be criminally prosecuted because the alleged incidents happened too long ago. Thomas Jackson, 58, has been named in dozens of lawsuits that were part of a historic $4-billion settlement.
— WHAT DISASTER? L.A. leaders declined to dramatically increase the budget of the city's Emergency Management Department, despite the many natural disasters that could hit the region in years to come. Facing a nearly $1-billion shortfall, the City Council passed a budget that rejected the funding bump asked for by department leaders.
— I SUED THE SHERIFF: Former Times reporter Maya Lau is suing Los Angeles County and Villanueva, the former sheriff, arguing that her 1st Amendment rights were violated. Lau's attorneys said she was the target of a sheriff's investigation that was 'designed to intimidate and punish' her for reporting about a leaked list of deputies with a history of misconduct.
That's it for this week! Send your questions, comments and gossip to LAontheRecord@latimes.com. Did a friend forward you this email? Sign up here to get it in your inbox every Saturday morning.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
8 hours ago
- Fox News
San Francisco close to taking new step to fight homelessness
San Francisco is set to crack down on homeless people living in RVs with its Board of Supervisors preparing to vote on strict new parking limits. A proposal that would enact a two-hour parking limit citywide for all RVs and oversized vehicles longer than 22 feet or higher than 7 feet -- regardless of whether they are being used as housing -- is up for final approval Tuesday. Mayor Daniel Lurie and supporters of the policy say motor homes are not suitable for long-term living and the city has a duty to both provide shelter to those in need and clean up the streets. Under an accompanying permit program, RV residents registered with the city as of May are exempt from the parking limits. In exchange, they must accept San Francisco's offer of temporary or longer-term housing and get rid of their RV when it's time to move. The city has budgeted more than half a million dollars to buy RVs from residents at $175 per foot. "We absolutely want to serve those families, those who are in crisis across San Francisco," Chief of Health & Human Services Kunal Modi told The Associated Press. "We feel the responsibility to help them get to a stable solution. And at the same time, we want to make sure that that stability is somewhere indoors and not exposed in the public roadway." The permits would last for six months. People in RVs who arrive after May will not be eligible for the permit program and must abide by the two-hour rule. The proposal, which targets at least 400 RVs, first cleared the Board of Supervisors last week with two of 11 supervisors voting "no." RV dwellers say San Francisco should open a safe parking lot where residents could empty trash and access electricity. However, city officials shuttered an RV lot in April, saying it cost about $4 million a year to service three dozen large vehicles and it failed to transition people to more stable housing, the AP reported. The mayor's new proposal comes with more money for beefed-up RV parking enforcement — but also an additional $11 million, largely for a small number of households to move to subsidized housing for a few years. Officials acknowledge that may not be sufficient to house all RV dwellers, but note that the city also has hotel vouchers and other housing subsidies.
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- Yahoo
Tulare County Supervisors respond to grand jury election integrity report
Tulare County Board of Supervisors formally responded to the findings and recommendations in the 'Election Integrity' section of the "Tulare County Civil Grand Jury Final Report, 2024-2025" at a July 15 meeting. In its Election Integrity section, the Tulare County Civil Grand Jury found that, 'there is tremendous oversight and regulation from the offices of the secretary of state and the (Tulare County Registrar of Voters) related to the entire election process.' Supervisors previously responded to the findings and recommendations in the 'Homeless Shelters,' 'Special Districts,' and 'Library Book Machines' sections of the report at their June 3 meeting. Proposed responses to the grand jury report were presented at both meetings by Israel Sotelo, Jr., the board's chief of staff. Responses to grand jury reports are required by the California Penal Code. More: Tulare County supervisors respond to grand jury findings; here's what they said Tulare County Grand jury findings The grand jury found that, 'The checks and balances employed were found to minimize the chance of widespread fraud that would impact the results of an election, and provide clear evidence to debunk many of the claims of election fraud.' 'We agree with this finding,' responded supervisors, who also agreed with the grand jury that, 'There is a need to further inform the electorate of the process in place to ensure the election and to encourage them to volunteer to be involved with (Tulare County Registrar of Voters) during election season.' There was a mixed response to the grand jury's final finding, however. 'It is believed with personal identification requirements, residency addresses, and requirements to have email and phone numbers are a strong safeguard against registration of fraudulent individuals to vote,' stated the grand jury's report. 'We partially disagree with this finding,' supervisors responded. 'The board recognizes that voter identification requirements are a strong safeguard against registration of fraudulent individuals to vote. Title 52 of United States Code Section 21038, and California Elections Code Section 2150 require individuals registering to vote for the first time to provide their current and valid driver's license number, or state identification number on the affidavit of registration.' The supervisors' response stated that also requiring mail and phone numbers, 'add no value in safeguarding against the registration of fraudulent voters.' Grand jury recommendations The grand jury recommendations included actions based on its findings. The grand jury recommended that the registrar of voters and other county agencies fund and organize public awareness of the multiple procedures in place to eliminate the "misconceptions of deceased people voting, unregistered voters casting votes, individuals voting numerous times, and breaches of data from the voting machines.' More: Why Tulare County supervisors named themselves to the Tulare Cemetery District Board The recommendation hasn't been implemented but will by January 2026, ahead of the primary and general elections, supervisors said. 'The Tulare County Registrar of Voters will create a fact sheet encompassing all relevant topics to distribute to registered voters in order to dispel misconceptions of widespread voter fraud in Tulare County," supervisors stated. The registrar of voters is also being asked to create a "robust campaign "outlining the opportunities to become involved as a volunteer during the election season. 'This recommendation has been implemented,' supervisors stated. 'The Tulare County Registrar of Voters regularly attends community events such as job fairs and senior day in the park to encourage individuals to register to vote and volunteer as poll workers. The ROV also posts flyers at community centers, DMVs, post offices, libraries, and church bulletin boards encouraging individuals to volunteer their time at the polls, and will be reaching out to business that encourage employee participation in community service activities such as Target, Kohl's, Saputo Cheese, and Dutch Bros.' The final recommendation was that volunteer information 'could be distributed via fact sheet in monthly utility bills or presentations to churches or civic groups.' However, that recommendation will not be implemented, according to the board. 'The cost and relative benefit of including a flyer in monthly utility bills is unjustifiable as most individuals receive their bills electronically," supervisors stated. "Similarly, the cost in overtime wages associated with presenting to local churches during their weekly meeting is unjustifiable, and increased awareness about volunteer opportunities can be accomplished through existing practices.' Read the full report: Tulare County Civil Grand Jury Final Report, 2024-2025 by eroberts on Scribd Note to readers: If you appreciate the work we do here at the Visalia Times Delta, please consider subscribing yourself or giving the gift of a subscription to someone you know. This article originally appeared on Visalia Times-Delta: Tulare County Supervisors respond to grand jury about election integrity Solve the daily Crossword
Los Angeles Times
6 days ago
- Los Angeles Times
L.A. County accidentally repealed its anti-incarceration ballot measure. Now what?
Los Angeles County leaders are scrambling to restore a sweeping racial justice initiative that voters accidentally repealed, a mistake that could threaten hundreds of millions of dollars devoted to reducing the number of people in jail. County supervisors unanimously voted Tuesday to ask their lawyers to find a way to bring back the ballot measure known as Measure J, which required the county to put a significant portion of its budget toward anti-incarceration services. Voters learned last week that they had unwittingly repealed the landmark criminal justice reform, passed in 2020 in the heat of the Black Lives Matter movement, when they voted for a completely unrelated measure to overhaul the county government last November. Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, who spearheaded the county overhaul — known as Measure G — along with Supervisor Janice Hahn, called it a 'colossal fiasco.' 'This situation that has unfolded is enraging and unacceptable at every level. What has transpired is sloppy,' Horvath said Tuesday. 'It's a bureaucratic disaster with real consequences.' The county says it's looking at multiple options to try to get Measure J permanently back in the charter — which dictates how the county is governed — including a change in state law, a court judgment or a ballot measure for 2026. 'We cannot and we won't let this mistake invalidate the will of the voters,' Hahn said. County lawyers say the mistake stems from a recently discovered 'administrative error.' Last November, voters approved Measure G, which expands the five-person Board of Supervisors to nine members and brings on an elected chief executive, among other overhauls. What no one seemed to realize — including the county lawyers who write the ballot measures — is that one measure would wipe out the other. Measure G rewrote a chunk of the charter with no mention of anti-incarceration funding, effectively wiping out the county's promise to put hundreds of millions toward services that keep people out of jail and support them when they leave. The repeal will take effect in 2028, giving the county three years to fix it. 'I do agree that there's all kinds of reasons to be outraged, but the sky is not falling. Even if you think the sky is falling, it won't fall until December 2028,' said Rob Quan, who leads a transparency-focused good-government advocacy group. 'We've got multiple opportunities to fix this.' The mistake was first spotted last month by former Duarte City Councilmember John Fasana, who sits on a task force in charge of implementing the county government overhaul. The county confirmed the mistake to The Times last week, a day after Fasana publicly raised the issue to his unsuspecting fellow task force members. The measure's critics say the mistake adds credence to their arguments that the county overhaul was put together too hastily. 'It seems to be that if one has to go back on the ballot, it ought to be [Measure] G,' said Fasana, noting it passed by a narrower margin. Otherwise, he says, the county has set an unnerving precedent. 'It's almost like setting a blueprint to steal an election,' said Fasana, who opposed both the anti-incarceration funding and the government overhaul measures. 'You've got this way to basically nullify something that was passed by voters.' Some worry that putting either measure back on the ballot runs the risk of voters rejecting it this time around. Measure G faced significant opposition — including from two sitting supervisors — who argued an elected chief executive would be too powerful and the measure left too much of this new government ill-defined. It narrowly passed with just over 51% of the vote. The anti-incarceration measure also faced heavy opposition in 2020, particularly from the Assn. for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, which spent more than $3.5 million on advertising on TV and social media. The measure passed with 57% of the vote. A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge ruled it unconstitutional after a group of labor unions — including the sheriff's deputies union — argued it hampered politicians' ability to manage taxpayer money as they see fit. An appellate court later reversed the decision. Measure J requires that 10% of locally generated, unrestricted L.A. County money be spent on social services such as housing, mental health treatment and other jail diversion programs. That's equivalent to roughly $288 million this fiscal year. The county is prohibited from spending the money on the carceral system — prisons, jails or law enforcement agencies. Derek Hsieh, the head of the sheriff's deputies union and a member of the governance reform task force, said the union had consulted with lawyers and believed the county would be successful if it tried to resolve the issue through a court judgment. 'A change in state law or running another ballot measure — it's kind of like swimming upstream,' he said. 'Those are the most expensive difficult things.' Megan Castillo, a coordinator with the Reimagine LA coalition, which pushed for the anti-incarceration measure, said if the group has to go back to the ballot, it will try to slash the language that it feels gives the county too much wiggle room on how funding is allocated. The coalition has clashed repeatedly with county leadership over just how much money is actually meant to be set aside under Measure J. 'If we do have to go to the ballot box, we're going to be asking for more,' she said. City Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez, who helped get the anti-incarceration measure on the ballot, said she felt suspicious of the error by county lawyers, some of whom she believed were never fully on board with the measure in the first place. 'I just feel like they're too good at their jobs for this error to occur,' said Hernandez, who said the news landed like a 'slap in the face.' County leaders have emphasized that the error was purely accidental and brushed aside concerns that the repeal would have any tangible difference on what gets funded. When Measure J was temporarily overturned by the court, the board promised to carry on with both the 'spirit and letter' of the measure, reserving a chunk of the budget for services that keep people out of jail and support those returning. That will still apply, they say, even if Measure J is not reinstated. The motion passed Tuesday directs the county to work on an ordinance to ensure 'the continued implementation of measure J' beyond 2028.
