In a rare moment of decisive unity, councilmembers agreed that Measure G, which will be on the November 2024 ballot, was not – at least in its current state – worthy of supporting.
Despite not having a particularly packed agenda this week, a lengthy public hearing on phase 2 implementation of the 6th Cycle Housing Element pushed Tuesday’s City Council meeting just shy of midnight, so when Item 16B rolled around, the discussion was short and to the point.
Measure G is a proposed amendment to the Los Angeles County Charter to create an elected County Executive, create an independent Ethics Commission, establish a nonpartisan Legislative Analyst, increase the Board of Supervisors from five to nine elected members and finally, require County departments to present annual budgets in public meetings.
The aim, among other things, would be to increase restrictions on lobbying and investigate misconduct, to review proposed County policies and regarding the budget presentations, to use existing funding sources with no additional taxes to implement, as detailed in the charter amendment ordinance.
This item was brought to this meeting by Councilmember de la Torre as the City’s voting delegate at the Westside Cities Council of Governments. At its August 8, 2024 board meeting, a presentation was given on Measure G and direction was provided to members, to seek direction from their respective governing bodies and return, prepared to discuss and possibly vote to take a position on Measure G at the next board meeting which is scheduled for October 10, 2024.
Councilmember Caroline Torosis wasted no time in expressing her thoughts. "I really applaud any effort at governance reform, I think we know that we have a board that represents 10 million people with five elected officials, unfortunately I can't support Measure G and for me, the non starter is the elected county executive.
"I have no conflict in voting on this … But Measure G would basically instill a single county executive who was elected by the 10 million people of LA County with unilateral authority over a $47 billion county budget, unilateral authority over the hiring and firing of all county department heads," she continued.
"It would be like us electing David White. David White preparing a budget and us not being able to disagree with that budget, because he has the sole authority to make any decisions on that budget. If you read section 11 of the actual ordinance, it details the powers and duties of the county executive and it's very clear that the county executive has all veto power over legislation and all veto power over the budget and sole authority to hire fire department heads. So I encourage folks to read the text of this measure, because the devil is in the details.
"And this initiative was rushed, and quite frankly, it doesn't go into effect until 2028 at the earliest, so I still think we have time to get this right," Torosis concluded.
Councilmember Gleam Davis, while not quite as brutal in her take down, also expressed concern. "I think expanding the Board of Supervisors is very important. I think having an ethics commission is incredibly important, she said, adding, "My primary concern with this has to do with the elected county executive … I think the problem would be that you would have someone … in a very powerful position, who might not have the skills or the inclination to carry out the job."
Vice Mayor Lana Negrete concurred," Everyone has said all the points, I just want to agree that for the same reasons that were just stated, I will not be supporting it either for the same reasons. And I also just want to point out that I think it does dilute some of the minority groups that are being represented, and that's something that needs to be looked at as well."
Mayor Phil Brock added his thoughts, "My answer would be, again, no, but bring it back in 2026 as a reasoned measure that's not last minute that we can get the supervisors behind and make sure that we're really looking at … what makes a good county supervisor in terms of how many people they have to govern, because we know our county supervisors govern areas that are bigger than several of the states. So this is an important decision, I will not favor this."
However, despite a unanimous decision from Santa Monica City Councilmembers to not endorse it, Measure G still has quite considerable support from many elected officials at city, county and state level. The website measure-g.com lists everyone who supports it, including US Congressmembers Ted Lieu and Robert Garcia, Senator Ben Allen and Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur.
"Measure G is the reform we need to make sure communities across LA County are represented and that our government is accountable to the people it serves," said Los Angeles County Board Chair and co-author of the measure, Lindsey P. Horvath in a statement issued on Wednesday.
scott.snowden@smdp.com
