Latest news with #MeasureG
Los Angeles Times
6 days ago
- Politics
- 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L.A. County accidentally repealed its anti-incarceration ballot measure.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Los Angeles County leaders are scrambling to restore a sweeping racial justice initiative that voters accidentally repealed, a mistake that could threaten hundreds of millions of dollars devoted to reducing the number of people in jail.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 Voters learned last week that they had unwittingly repealed the landmark criminal justice reform, passed in 2020 in the heat of the Black Lives Matter movement, when they voted for a completely unrelated measure to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.
Politico
14-07-2025
- Politics
- Politico
The administrative error that wiped out one Los Angeles ballot measure and may force another
'The whole thing is unbelievable, that this actually could have happened,' Fasana told Playbook. 'But it did.' Fasana and fellow task force member Derek Steele argued during the meeting that their newly established 13-member task force should figure out how to proceed with the Measure J omission before getting into the nitty-gritty of implementing Measure G. 'I don't think it puts the committee members in a good position to go out talking to the public and doing public outreach when there's this cloud hanging over the thing that they might not even know about,' Fasana said. 'So that's why I came forward when I did … there should be a more public discussion of how this is going to get fixed.' They argue it's possible to add Measure J back into the charter without needing voter approval. Then they want to see a new charter amendment on the ballot next November to rehash parts of Measure G, particularly those related to the elected executive which wiped out Measure J. Those sections incidentally were the leading reason Fasana and Steele both opposed Measure G. 'If we are going to be rehashing any conversation, I think it is to take in a reexamination of Measure G, which was rushed in the first place, which never was really community-vetted,' said Steele. 'The portion about the county CEO … maybe that part needs to go back before the public and be reexamined.' The Los Angeles County Counsel confirmed in a statement that Measure G did in fact repeal Measure J, but also clarified that the repeal 'would have no impact' on the funding called for in Measure J because the board has adopted a budget policy 'identical to the objectives set out in Measure J.' But that effectively leaves a voter-approved policy change up to the whims of lawmakers, as a new Board of Supervisors could simply reverse the funding decision. Backers of Measure J were incensed by the mix-up. Assemblymember Isaac Bryan, who had been involved in the Measure J campaign in 2020, said he was 'absolutely livid' when he found out. 'I don't know who to blame here, but I do know that in some respects, what the voters voted on in November [with Measure G] did not accurately reflect what the proponents of the measure intended or what the outcome potentially is if there's no administrative fix,' Bryan said. 'That is not something that should force Measure J back to the ballot.'
Politico
14-07-2025
- Politics
- Politico
The clerical error that wiped out one ballot measure and may force another
Presented by MEASURE FOR MEASURE — Los Angeles County supervisors will meet Tuesday to decide whether voters need to return to the polls next year to clean up a mess the board made. The predicament has its origins on last November's ballot, when Angelenos approved a sweeping plan to reorganize their powerful county government but — due to what county counsel calls an 'inadvertent administrative error' — also repealed an unrelated 2020 measure guaranteeing a share of county funds go toward anti-incarceration programs. The charter-related snafu came to light last week at a meeting of the task force created to implement Measure G, the charter amendment written to expand the size of the Board of Supervisors and establish an elected county executive role. Duarte City Councilmember John Fasana announced that, while comparing the Measure G overhaul to an earlier version of the charter, he had discovered that 2020's Measure J had never been added to the charter in the first place — which meant that putting Measure G on the books wiped Measure J away entirely. 'The whole thing is unbelievable, that this actually could have happened,' Fasana told Playbook. 'But it did.' Fasana and fellow task force member Derek Steele argued during the meeting that their newly established 13-member task force should figure out how to proceed with the Measure J omission before getting into the nitty-gritty of implementing Measure G. They argue it's possible to add Measure J back into the charter without needing voter approval. Then they want to see a new charter amendment on the ballot next November to rehash parts of Measure G, particularly those related to the elected executive, which are the specific sections that wiped out Measure J and incidentally were the leading reason Fasana and Steele both opposed Measure G. 'If we are going to be rehashing any conversation, I think it is to take in a reexamination of Measure G, which was rushed in the first place, which never was really community-vetted,' said Steele. 'The portion about the county CEO … maybe that part needs to go back before the public and be reexamined.' Members of the task force who supported Measure G last fall say they worry bringing this error to light — and doing it as a surprise during a public meeting — was a way for its critics to throw a wrench in the implementation process, or even to force a re-vote on Measure G, which passed by only a narrow margin. 'It seemed like this was an attempt to blow the whole thing up, shut it all down,' Marcel Rodarte, the executive director of the California Contract Cities Association and a task force member, told Playbook. Sara Sadhwani, a professor at Pomona College who also serves on the task force, was also suspicious of the timing. 'I'm not sure who knew what or when they knew it, but clearly Mr. Fasana wanted to drop this bomb on us and use it as an excuse to stop the work of Measure G,' she said. The next steps will be up for debate tomorrow as the five supervisors meet in downtown LA. Measure G's authors, Supervisors Lindsey Horvath and Janice Hahn, will present a motion directing county officials to explore the board's options, including a 2026 ballot measure that would correct the error without addressing the substance of either measure. 'Now as we move to implement Measure G, it's critical that we codify Measure J first to safeguard those community investments,' Hahn said in a statement. 'One technical error should not invalidate the clear will of the voters.' NEWS BREAK: San Francisco city government introduces OpenAI chatbot for city services … Trump administration asks appeals court to resume immigration raids in Southern California… The number of homeless people declined 4 percent in LA County in 2025. Welcome to Ballot Measure Weekly, a special edition of Playbook PM focused on California's lively realm of ballot measure campaigns. Drop us a line at eschultheis@ and wmccarthy@ or find us on X — @emilyrs and @wrmccart. TOP OF THE TICKET A highly subjective ranking of the ballot measures — past and future, certain and possible — getting our attention this week. 1. CalExit (2026): A longshot effort to initiate the process of California leaving the union has failed to reach its signature goal, but organizers insist they will not give up. Chief proponent Marcus Ruiz Evans tells Courthouse News he will refile an initiative in the coming weeks. 2. Ballot language (2025): A proposal from Assemblymember Gail Pellerin to streamline ballot language for local measures will head to its next hearing in the Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee on Tuesday. AB 1512 is part of the committee's 'efforts to continually improve our ballots and make them as clear and navigable as possible for our voters,' Pellerin told Playbook. 'We don't want voter fatigue, we don't want voter confusion.' 3. Local housing authority (2026?): Del Mar last week followed the lead of city councils in nearby Encinitas and Oceanside on a growing list of local officials backing a potential constitutional amendment to give local governments more control over housing and zoning decisions. The amendment, promoted by a group called Our Neighborhood Voices, has not yet been filed with the secretary of state. 4. Voter ID (2026): Assemblymember Carl DeMaio is set this week to officially submit an initiative to require citizenship verification and government-issued identification to vote, according to his organization Reform California. DeMaio says he intends to qualify with a volunteer-driven petition campaign. 5. Great Highway Park (San Francisco, 2024): A popular night market is the latest collateral damage in an ongoing Sunset neighborhood civil war over the creation of an oceanside park via ballot initiative. As district supervisor Joel Engardio faces a recall campaign, vendors have begun pulling out of the market which Engardio brought to the neighborhood in 2023. 6. Prop 36 (2024): Democratic Assemblymember Isaac Bryan told California Black Media that last year's tough-on-crime initiative is a 'war on poor people' after a Voice of San Diego report found arrests resulting from the measure are disproportionately occurring in Black communities. The arrest data bears out a concern raised by social justice groups during last year's campaign. 7. Redistricting (2026?): Gov. Gavin Newsom said on a campaign-style swing through Southern states that Texas Republicans' plans to deliver a mid-decade partisan gerrymander 'made me question that entire program' of nonpartisan redistricting used in California. That process was set by two constitutional amendments promoted by predecessor Arnold Schwarzenegger, 2008's Prop 11 and 2010's Prop 20, that would likely compel Newsom to return to the ballot if he's serious about following through on tit-for-tat threats to redraw the state's U.S. House map. ON OTHER BALLOTS A federal judge in Florida blocked some provisions in a recent law placing new restrictions on the state's initiative process, a partial victory for activists who are looking to expand Medicaid and legalize marijuana via the 2026 ballot … Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe signed a measure to repeal Proposition A, an initiative voters approved last November to guarantee paid sick leave … Elections officials in Michigan approved ballot language for a constitutional amendment that would require a government-issued ID to vote, clearing its backers to begin gathering signatures … The Maine state supreme court upheld the ballot language for a proposed initiative that would require voter ID and tighten absentee voting rules, rejecting a challenge from its proponents that the wording 'misrepresents' their proposal… And the Democratic governor and Republican state senate leader in Washington state are both backing a plan to invest tax dollars intended for the state's long-term care program into the stock market, a proposal that will appear before voters as a constitutional amendment in November. I'M JUST A BILL AFFORDABLE HOUSING BOND (AB 736 / SB 417): The Legislature has approved changes to California's landmark environmental law, but another proposal Newsom endorsed this spring as part of an effort to tackle the state's affordable housing crisis hasn't gone anywhere. AB 736, a $10 million affordable housing bond proposed by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, passed out of the Assembly in June. At the time, its backers — a coalition of landlords, developers, YIMBY groups, building-trades unions, local governments and elected officials — launched a public pressure campaign to push senators to embrace the proposal so it can reach voters in 2026. But more than a month later, AB 736 has yet to get a hearing there. Nor has SB 417, a nearly identical bill introduced by state Sen. Christopher Cabaldon. Cabaldon told Playbook the delay is in large part because senators concerned with housing issues had been preoccupied with amending the California Environmental Quality Act and securing money via budget negotiations. Now that those bills have passed, he expects to see the Senate move forward with the bond proposal after the Legislature's July recess and before this fall's longer break. 'Part of the challenge here always is when you're trying to have a budget fight, simultaneously talking about $10 billion for housing programs,' he said. 'We didn't want to take any of the pressure off of the need to make those investments right now … now that that's done, we can turn our attention to the longer term, which is the housing bond.' The bond's backers are currently 'doing electoral research' to determine whether they would hope to see it appear on the ballot next June or November, according to Cabaldon, and those considerations will determine when and how to make a big legislative push. He hopes to make enough progress by fall to 'have the discussions that we will need to have with the governor.' WHATEVER HAPPENED TO ... PROTECTIONS FOR FARM ANIMALS (2008, 2018): Two California ballot initiatives passed a decade apart have 'been effective in raising prices for American consumers,' the Trump administration claims in a federal lawsuit seeking to overturn them. The suit alleges three California laws overstep the state's authority to govern egg production, two of which were passed directly by voters. Prop 2, an initiative approved in 2008, created welfare mandates for farm animals such as egg-laying hens. Prop 12, passed 10 years later, introduced specific minimum-space requirements for chickens and other farm animals. This isn't the first time these ballot measures have faced litigation. Cases challenging the validity of these laws have repeatedly failed, including one brought to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2023. The latest suit, filed in U.S. District Court in central California, will turn on interpretation of a 1970 federal law that the Trump administration says reserves egg-regulating authority for Congress. 'This case seems to be largely a political stunt related to the price of eggs,' said Rebecca Cary, a managing attorney at the Humane Society of the United States, which played a key role in supporting and drafting Prop 2 and Prop 12. The lawsuit is part of a renewed push by out-of-state Republicans to challenge California animal-rights initiatives that have had an outsized effect on the national agriculture marketplace. On Monday, California's two senators organized 29 of their Democratic colleagues to sign a letter opposing the Food Security and Farm Protection Act, which would override state standards like those enacted by California voters. 'Countless farmers who wanted to take advantage of this market opportunity invested resources and made necessary modifications to be compliant,' read the letter from Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla. 'Federal preemption of these laws would be picking the winners and losers, and would seriously harm farmers who made important investments.' POSTCARD FROM ... … EBBETTS PASS FIRE DISTRICT: A rural fire district in the Sierra Nevada mountains is sitting on $750,000 in annual tax revenue it needs to keep its ambulances and fire trucks running, the result of a local parcel tax passed in 2019. But voters first have to give fire officials permission to spend it. Measure B, which will go before voters in the Ebbetts Pass Fire Protection District in an all-mail special election on Aug. 24, would let the local government spend revenues above the previously established level. That so-called Gann limit, established by 1979's Prop 4, caps government spending at then-current levels adjusted for inflation and population — with some excess revenue returned to taxpayers. The Ebbetts Pass Fire Protection District represents only about 7,000 full-time residents along a scenic mountain highway that bills itself as one of the most 'intimate and untamed routes' in the Sierras. But the population can balloon to as many as 25,000 people during peak months, primarily from those who come to enjoy the area's range of outdoor activities. That, says Ebbetts Pass Fire Chief Mike Johnson, makes it crucial to have local ambulances on hand. Unlocking the funds will allow the district to continue staffing its ambulances and fire trucks 24 hours a day. 'We transport about 700 people per year — it's not an earth-shattering number,' Johnson told Playbook. 'But what makes us different from, let's say, the city areas is that our closest hospital … is 35 miles away on country, windy roads.' Johnson expects Measure B to be a relatively easy sell to voters. After all, it won't raise their taxes, just allow the district to spend the tax revenue it has already received. But he still worries that voters might be taken by the allure of getting a few of their tax dollars back down the line. 'Knowing how tough times have been on everybody and the rising cost of everything,' he said, 'some folks may go, 'Yeah, I'll take whatever tax money I've got coming back to me, I could use that in my own pocket.'' THAT TIME VOTERS ... … WENT NUCLEAR: Californians have seen ballot measures on a wide range of questions related to nuclear energy and nuclear weapons, including to: Authorize helium-cooled, barge-mounted nuclear reactors in marinas and order the Public Utilities Commission to develop a radioactive waste storage facility (1975, did not qualify) … Prohibit construction of nuclear power plants and limit the operation of existing plants unless the federal government agrees to take full financial responsibility for any accident that occurs (1976, failed) … Require the governor to send a letter to the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State and all members of Congress proposing that the United States and the Soviet Union halt nuclear weapons production (1982, passed) … Declare California to be a 'nuclear-free zone,' limiting radioactive material within the state and prohibiting direct involvement related to nuclear war (1983, did not qualify) … Block state and local agencies from developing emergency response plans to mitigate the consequences of a serious accident at any of the state's existing nuclear plants (1988, did not qualify) … Stop funding for nuclear weapons and reallocate money toward cooperative agreements to secure, reduce and dismantle nuclear, chemical and biological weapons (2003, did not qualify) … Make it easier for the state to approve new nuclear power plants and repeal the existing process for determining whether nuclear waste storage is adequate (2007, did not qualify) … And set conditions for the operation and expansion of nuclear power plants, including additional legislative oversight and federal approval for the reprocessing of nuclear fuel rods (2013, did not qualify).
Los Angeles Times
10-07-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
LA County's charter reform accidentally repealed anti-incarceration ballot measure
Last November, voters approved a sprawling overhaul to L.A. County's government. They didn't realize they were also repealing the county's landmark criminal justice reform. Eight months later, county officials are just now realizing they unwittingly committed an administrative screw-up for the ages. Supervisors Lindsey Horvath and Janice Hahn co-authored Measure G, which changed the county charter to expand the five-person board and elect a new county executive, among other momentous shifts. But nobody seemed to realize the new charter language would repeal Measure J, which voters approved in 2020 to dedicate hundreds of millions towards services that offer alternatives to incarceration. 'We can confirm that due to an inadvertent administrative error by a prior Executive Officer administration, Measure J was not placed in the County's Charter after its passage in 2020,' said County Counsel in a statement. 'As a result, when the voters passed Measure G, they repealed Measure J effective December 2028.' The mistake appears to stem from a failure by the county's executive office to update the county charter with Measure J after it passed in 2020. County lawyers then failed to include the Measure J language when they drafted the 2024 ballot measure. So when voters approved Measure G, they accidentally repealed Measure J, according to the county. The screw-up was first discovered by John Fasana, a former Duarte Councilmember who sits on the county's governance reform task force, which is tasked with implementing the government overhaul. He said he first raised the issue with the county in early June. 'Someone goofed,' said Fasana, who was appointed to the taskforce by Supervisor Kathryn Barger. 'I couldn't believe it when I saw it.' Megan Castillo, a coordinator with the Reimagine LA Coalition, which pushed Measure J to the ballot in 2020, said she was disturbed to learn last week that the fruit of years of advocacy would soon be wiped away accidentally. 'It shouldn't be undermined just because folks rushed policy making,' said Castillo. 'We know more voters were for Measure J than Measure G. It's disrespectful to the will of the people to find this could unintentionally happen.' Measure J requires that 10% of locally generated, unrestricted L.A. County money — estimated between $360 million and $900 million — be spent on social services, such as housing, mental health treatment and other jail diversion programs. The county is prohibited from spending the money on the carceral system — prisons, jails or law enforcement agencies. Castillo said she was worried the repeal would result in a 'deep economic fallout' for these programs with county money potentially diverted to costs required by Measure G, like the salaries of new politicians and their staff. Measure G bars the county from raising taxes meaning this money will have to come from elsewhere in the county budget. Castillo said she first brought the issue to the attention to deputies for Hahn and Horvath last week. 'They are shocked as well,' said Castillo. Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, who led the charge on Measure G, said in a statement a proposal was coming to correct the 'County bureaucracy's error related to Measure J.' 'This measure was the result of a hard-fought, community-led effort that I wholeheartedly supported—and remain deeply committed to upholding,' said Horvath. 'This situation makes clear why Measure G is so urgently needed. … When five people are in charge, no one is in charge, and this is a quintessential example of what that means.' Supervisor Kathryn Barger, who opposed the overhaul of the county charter, saw it a little differently. 'It also reinforces one of the key concerns I had about Measure G from the start. When major changes to the County Charter are pushed forward without sufficient time for analysis, public input, and transparency, mistakes become more likely. Oversights like this are exactly what can happen,' Barger said in a statement. 'This error could–and should–have been caught before voters were asked to make a decision.' Supervisor Hilda Solis said she was 'surprised and concerned' to learn about the error but was confident the funding envisioned by Measure J would 'continue unaffected.' The Times reached out to the other two supervisors and has yet to receive their responses. County attorneys said in a statement they were working with the executive office to 'address this situation' and ensure the executive office 'timely codified' charter amendments going forward. They emphasized that, despite the looming repeal of Measure J, the county will continue to align its budget with the goals of the measure. Derek Hsieh, head of the Assn. for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs and a member of the governance reform taskforce member, called the mistake a 'cluster—.' 'I think the voters and county employees would like to know when the Board of Supervisors knew about this mistake and what they plan on doing to fix it,' said Hsieh, who was an outspoken opponent of both Measure G and Measure J. The union, which represents sheriff's deputies, had spent more than $3.5 million on advertising on TV and social media to fight Measure J. The union had also joined other county labor unions to challenge the measure in court. 'There's absolutely no question both by the will of the voters and a decision by the California Supreme Court that Measure J is the law of the land,' said Hsieh. The screw-up became public Wednesday night at the task force's second-ever meeting. Fasana told his fellow members who had gatherered at Bob Hope Patriotic Hall downtown he had found 'a major issue.' The news created something of an uproar in meeting that was supposed to focus on more mundane bureaucratic matters. Some members said they wanted to wait to discuss it until everyone had been briefed on what exactly he was talking about. Others said they didn't understand how they could talk about anything else. 'To me all the work we're trying to move forward with stops because there's a problem —a significant, fundamental one,' said Derek Steele, who was appointed by Supervisor Holly Mitchell. 'We may actually need to take Measure G back to the people,' said Steele. ' We need to make sure we have a solve for this.' Both Mitchell and Barger opposed Measure G, arguing it had been put together too hastily and gave too much power to an ill-defined county executive. Sara Sadhwani, who was appointed to the task force by Horvath, said she found the accidental repeal of Measure J 'incredibly concerning,' but found the way the news had been delivered to the task force 'obstructive.' 'It raises so many questions for me and raises concerns about who is operating in good faith on this task forcem,' said Sadhwani. 'If this was a good faith effort, wouldn't we have agendized this issue, instead of dropping a bomb that people have no knowledge of.' The taskforce has asked for a report from the county's attorneys for their next meeting. Jaclyn Cosgrove contributed to this story.
Los Angeles Times
31-05-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
There will soon be a ‘mayor of L.A. County.' How much power should come with the job?
Soon, the most powerful Los Angeles County politician won't be the mayor of L.A. It won't be a county supervisor. 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@ Did a friend forward you this email? Sign up here to get it in your inbox every Saturday morning.
