Supporters of LA County Measure G to expand board of supervisors claim victory

LOS ANGELES (CNS) -- Backers of a measure to expand the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and make the CEO position elected claimed victory.

Measure G leads 51.36%-48.64%, according to figures released Monday by the Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk.

Measure G would expand the Board of Supervisors from five to nine members following the 2030 census and the county CEO would become an elected position by 2028. The measure also included the creation of the positions of county legislative analyst and director of budget and management.

"The people of Los Angeles County have made history in passing Measure G, ushering in the change necessary for a more effective Los Angeles County," Board of Supervisors Chair Lindsey Horvath, who co-authored the measure, said in a statement. "We will now have the ability to fix what is broken and deliver the results our communities are counting on, especially in the face of threats to our most vulnerable residents from the next federal administration. Through this historic change, we will address the most pressing issues facing Angelenos with greater urgency and accountability, and create a more ethical and representative government fit for the 21st century."

Measure G also includes the establishment of an Ethics Commission and a compliance officer by 2026. The Board of Supervisors has begun the process of creating an Ethics Commission. Its existence will now be codified in the charter, along with the establishment of a compliance officer, protecting it from being disbanded in future absent another public vote.

The measure also has a series of other provisions, including the creation of a commission that would review the county charter every 10 years; require all county departments to present their annual budgets during public meetings; require all Board of Supervisors agenda items to be posted at least 120 hours prior to a regular meting; authorize suspension of an elected official charged with a felony relating to a violation of officials duties; create a task force to oversee the implementations of the changes; and require that the changes be made with no additional cost to taxpayers.

Horvath and Supervisor Janice Hahn, the measure's other co-author, argued that the County Charter was adopted in 1912, when the population was about 500,000. But the county now has 10 million residents and encompasses 88 cities within its border.

Supervisor Hilda Solis, who has backed the measure since proposal, said, "Measure G will help bring more direct representation to many communities that have been historically underrepresented in Los Angeles."

Currently, 10 million people in the county are represented by five people on the board. Horvath had described that as "absurd," saying residents deserve to have their government brought closer to them.

"Each of these districts is represented by a supervisor who is not only their social safety net, but also functions as their mayor for a lot of the municipal services," Horvath told City News Service.

Supervisors Holly Mitchell and Kathryn Barger opposed the measure, saying the changes were being rushed forward, and questioned if nine would be the proper number of members on an expanded board.

They had also opposed the concept of an elected CEO, saying in a ballot argument against the measure that the person would lack accountability, serving with no term limits while endowed with the power to control the county's massive budget and weakening the Board of Supervisors' authority over the budget and the ability to hold department heads accountable.

"The people of L.A. County deserve results from their elected leaders, not more elected positions without accountability and increased spending that takes from an already strained county budget working to address the homeless and mental health crisis," according to the ballot argument signed by Mitchell and Barger, along with the leaders of the Los Angeles County firefighters union and the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs.

Opponents also questioned the notion that the changes could be implemented without any new costs to taxpayers, given its creation of new elected positions and county offices.