L.A. County Measure G guide: Expanding L.A. County Board of Supervisors

A Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors that’s nearly double its current size. A new elected executive, who functions like a mayor. A commission to root out corrupt county officials.

That’s all on the ballot Nov. 5 with Measure G, a proposal by Supervisors Lindsey Horvath and Janice Hahn to reshape L.A. County’s government structure.

The supervisors — all women — are sometimes referred to as the “five little queens” for their influential, albeit un-glamorous job overseeing the largest county in the country. The measure would force the supervisors to part with some of their power, sharing the room with four new colleagues and an elected chief executive. The county currently has an appointed chief executive officer who reports to the supervisors.

Supervisor Hilda Solis joined Horvath and Hahn to put the measure in front of voters, arguing that five people cannot effectively represent a population larger than many states. Supervisors Holly Mitchell and Kathryn Barger panned it as rushed and ill-conceived.

If you’re a longtime county resident, parts of the proposal may sound familiar. Since 1926, voters have rejected the idea of expanding the Board of Supervisors eight times — most recently in 2000.

Supporters are hoping that voters, fed up with local corruption and bureaucratic dysfunction, will view things a little differently this time around.

What would the new districts look like?

Currently, each county supervisor represents about 2 million residents. That’s roughly the population of New Mexico.

Horvath and Hahn say it’s simply too many people.

Five supervisors may have worked a century ago, when the county’s population was around 500,000. But times have changed, they say, and the board needs to change too.

The measure would expand the board to nine supervisors, with each representing about 1.1 million people.

Though open to a bigger board, Mitchell and Barger have questioned the nine figure — why not seven? why not 15? — and say it’s far from clear that this is the magic ratio.

“There’s too much at risk for us to take a bite of the apple that’s not absolutely ideal,” Mitchell said at a public meeting.

New districts would be carved out for the nine supervisors, which could result in a more racially diverse board in a county that is nearly half Latino and about 15% Asian. U.S. Reps. Judy Chu (D-Monterey Park) and Ted Lieu (D-Torrance) have both said they believe that expanding the board could lead to a district with a sizable Asian American Pacific Islander population.

Three of the current supervisors are white, one is Latina and one is Black. There has never been an Asian American supervisor.

What’s the most contentious part?

The most controversial change involves the chief executive position.

Currently, the five supervisors appoint a chief executive officer, who is one of the most powerful officials in the county. The executive oversees daily operations for the county and takes the first stab at drafting the roughly $46-billion annual budget.

If Measure G passes, the chief executive would be elected by voters.

Supporters say this will bring more accountability, with residents deciding whom they want in charge — and when to boot them out.

Electing a chief executive, supporters say, would also give the county government some much-needed checks and balances. The supervisors would head up the legislative branch. Meanwhile, the chief executive would have all the executive power. Similar to a mayor, they would be able to veto board policies and have full responsibility for department heads.

“There is no one in charge to force these departments to deliver outcomes,” Horvath said in an interview. “We still have difficulties in getting these departments to work together.”

Mitchell and Barger have countered that the position will be politicized, with a formerly neutral bureaucrat now forced to cater to a political base. Several county employee unions — including those representing firefighters, probation officers and sheriff’s deputies — agree, arguing that an elected executive would create confusion about who’s in charge.

Anything else?

The measure calls for what Horvath describes as a “once-in-a-century” ethics reform — the creation of an independent ethics commission to root out corruption in county government. Critics have dinged the proposal as a “cheap sweetener” meant to make a controversial package more palatable to voters.

There are a few smaller changes as well. Under the measure, any elected official charged with a felony related to their job would be suspended without pay. Former county officials could not lobby the county for at least two years after leaving.

And department heads would have to present their annual budgets at open hearings intended to give the public more opportunities to weigh in before the budget is fully baked.

How much will this all cost?

That’s one of the big questions.

The county auditor estimated that one-time costs to implement the changes would be about $8 million, which would include new office space and hiring new staff. That doesn’t include any ongoing costs, including salaries and benefits for the four new supervisors and their staff.

Each supervisor currently makes about $280,000 a year.

Horvath and Hahn have promised that residents won’t see higher taxes as a result. The language in the ballot measure prohibits the county from raising taxes to pay for the reforms.

But it’s still unclear where the money to pay for the changes will come from, fueling accusations from critics that the measure was slapped together too quickly.

The Assn. for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, one of the county unions opposing the measure, has warned of a “reduction in primary services” if it passes, while Mitchell has said she doesn’t like the idea of putting something on the ballot with an unknown price tag.

When would these changes happen?

It would take years for the biggest changes to take place. The deadline to create the ethics commission would be 2026. The county chief executive would be elected by 2028. And the county wouldn’t see all nine supervisors until 2032, after a redistricting process.