Despite mounting opposition, a ballot measure that would increase the number of Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors from five to nine members, create an elected, not appointed, county executive officer and establish an ethics commission received its first vote of approval on Tuesday, July 23.
The supervisors voted 3-2 on the ballot measure drawn up by the L.A. County Counsel’s Office. All it needs is a second and final vote that’s set for July 30 and the sweeping governance reform — the first multi-pronged charter reform package in more than 100 years that will change the face of county government — will go before voters on Nov. 5.
While the ballot measure moved a giant step closer to county voters, Second District Supervisor Holly Mitchell and Fifth District Supervisor Kathryn Barger voted “no,” after arguing the measure will not be revenue neutral, as it says, but will have to be paid for out of county services and other cutbacks.
“It worries me deeply if we think we can pay for the (board) expansion with existing funds,” Mitchell said, as the supervisors debated the merits.
The two supervisors — who had abstained from a vote to draw up the measure on July 9 — asked for and received a unanimous vote to require a cost analysis of all county ballot measures placed before voters. The new requirement would affect the charter reform measure should it reach the ballot. A draft cost analysis is expected to be completed by mid-August.
As to charter reform itself, many residents said they felt the ballot measure was being pushed through and needed more study to avoid confusion and, if approved, unintended consequences.
“While we agree reform is necessary, we feel that the lack of community engagement and the rush of the process give us pause,” said Stanley Thermidor, policy and advocacy strategist for the group A New Way of Life. He had worked on reforms at City of Los Angeles and said that was a year-and-a-half process, while voting on this county measure may be done by next week.
If approved by a majority of voters in November, the county’s reform package would launch in 2026, creating a county ethics commission, followed by the election of a county executive officer in 2028.
Voters would then begin expanding the number of seats following the 2030 U.S. Census and during elections starting in 2032. New supervisor districts would have to be redrawn before the election, a process that could become controversial.
The reform package also calls for hiring several new county department heads to bring budgeting and ethics reform to the forefront of the county governing process. These new positions include an ethics compliance officer, a director of budget and management, and a county legislative analyst.
Costs and salaries for these positions are not specified in the measure.
Many believe that adding four new supervisors would require hiring more staffers and aides in permanent positions, and also renting additional office space. Fesia Davenport, the current appointed chief executive officer, said the county could pay for these expenses by using leftover budget funds from each department and/or asking departments to leave some budgeted positions unfilled.
Members of the Black community and leaders of Black nonprofit groups agreed with Mitchell, saying that adding more board members who would serve in the new, smaller districts may help constituents get closer to their representatives — but that should not come at the expense of those receiving crucial county services.
“When we confuse expansion with the ability of people to meet their needs, we run into serious trouble,” said Mark-Anthony Clayton-Johnson, co-executive director of Dignity and Power Now.
Clayton-Johnson added that just going to nine board members doesn’t help people dependent on county programs.
Ron Collins, with the Los Angeles Black Workers Center, also opposed putting the measure on the November ballot. “This needs true engagement and adequate study,” he said. His group agreed with the local chapter of the California Black Power Network, he said.
But the three supervisors in support, Third District Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, First District Supervisor Hilda Solis and Fourth District Supervisor Janice Hahn, said there has been enough study and the time to act is now.
Horvath said the measure will not require dipping into other funds or services.
“I appreciate the concerns raised about cutting services,” Horvath said. “This ordinance does not propose service cuts.”
The issue of how the reforms get done will be left up to a Government Reform Task Force, which will hold public hearings and allow for cost vetting, Horvath said.
Mitchell said the supervisors have a habit of passing resolutions that can’t be funded. She said 60 board motions have been passed since she joined the board, costing $320 million, but were not funded. “We would be adding this layer on top of those 60 motions,” she said.
But Solis, the swing vote for the reform package, said having more supervisors will help representatives of other ethnic groups possibly get a supervisor. She suggested that a new member could come from the Asian American Pacific Islander group.
“People want a representative government. And they want it to look like them,” Solis said. She also said she will be off the board in December 2026, so she would not be affected by new districts and additional board members.
Barger floated a motion to remove the elected CEO from the package but that motion failed. She was concerned that having a CEO who runs for office, instead of appointed by the supervisors, would politicize the position. Barger said creating an elected position with broad powers but no term limits, including the power to hire department heads and veto certain board measures “may not be in the best interest of the county.”
