County officials gathered in support of Measure G at a press conference in West Hollywood on Oct. 16. (photo courtesy of the office of Lindsey Horvath)

Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Chair Lindsey Horvath, 3rd District, and Supervisor Janice Hahn, 4th District, have amassed widespread support since they introduced a ballot measure that could dramatically change county governance.

But while Supervisor Hilda Solis, 1st District, provided the third vote necessary for Measure G to be added to the Nov. 5 ballot, both Supervisor Holly Mitchell, 2nd District, and Kathryn Barger, 5th District, has stayed steadfastly against the proposal. Measure G would not only expand the board to nine members, it would also make the CEO, currently appointed by the supervisors, an elected position and add an independent ethics committee.

“Measure G is the most comprehensive government reform package for Los Angeles County in more than a century,” Horvath said. “It has a few basic components: expanding the number of seats on the board of supervisors from five to nine, separating out the executive authority that the board currently enjoys, creating a separate branch of government, checks and balances that we learned about in grade school civics class, creating an elected executive and creating an independent ethics commission – a charter reform commission.”

Horvath said the purpose of this commission is so that “changes like this” don’t take over a century to happen, but are “reviewed at least every 10 years by a formal process.” The Board of Supervisors has been almost exclusively a five-member entity since 1852, when the population of the county was roughly 3,500 people. Now, nearly 10 million people live in the county and each supervisor represents almost 2 million people.

Horvath said that there would be no budget strain on tax payers in the expansion.

“Nobody’s paying an additional cent in taxes in order for this change to happen. My colleagues brought forward a motion, which we all supported, to do an independent fiscal analysis by the auditor controller, and his independent fiscal analysis said that implementing these changes would cost $8 million, and while that is not nothing, when we’re looking at a $49 billion budget, which the board currently has, I believe we’re going to find the resources within that existing budget quite easily.”

Barger, however, argues that the measure as written would result in less transparency.

“Having been with the county for 35 years, I’ve seen this brought before the voters before, but it was brought before the voters as an elected CEO, and it failed. This time [the CEO is] buried within an expansion of the board and creating an independent ethics commission,” Barger said. “By the way, it’s not independent. [The commission is] going to be appointed by the board. But having said that, those that believe the argument that the proponents are making, that this will actually provide better representation, should better understand exactly what this does. This, in fact, takes the power away from the board, expands the board to nine, and takes the ability to have the departments directly under them. It moves that all out and gives it to one elected CEO. So, in fact, what you’re doing is you’re actually moving away from representation throughout the county and consolidating it to one individual. And I truly believe it will politicize the county in a way that I have not seen.”

Barger said that the board expansion is being used to hoodwink the voters.

“I call the expansion of the board and even the ethics commission the Trojan horse, because it resonates with people,” she said. “I’d also point out that if you look at the city of L.A., when they do any sort of reform, it comes from the bottom up, is transparent, and they put together a body that that will review it before it is brought to the voters. In this case, that was not done. I found out about the motion on Monday that it was coming to the board on Tuesday. That contradicts the whole argument of transparency in government.”

Barger also argued that the cost would not be insignificant unlike Horvath professed.

“Holly and I asked for the auditor controller to put together a cost analysis as to what an estimate is. Just the startup cost alone, not considering the millions that we require year after year on ongoing expenses, is $8 million. I know that if you’re expanding the board to nine, you’ve got staff, you’ve got also four additional board members. And so to argue that it’s going to be cost neutral is disingenuous.”

She added that a CEO being responsible for all county resident services, particularly in unincorporated communities, would be a major problem.

“It’s actually less than 2 million that [each supervisor is] responsible for the municipal services. And that gets lost on people, because 10 million is a large number, and now one elected CEO is going to oversee all 10,” Barger said.

Among the supporters of Measure G is L.A. County Accessor Jeff Prang and California Assemblyman Rick Chavez Zbur (D-Los Angeles).

“Measure G is a step toward a more inclusive and accountable Los Angeles County,” Prang said. “It ensures greater representation, transparency, oversight, which are essential to building a government that truly reflects and serves all its people while creating a government that is more responsive to our more than 10 million residents.”

“I’m proud to endorse Measure G because it’s about giving the people of Los Angeles County the fair, accountable government they deserve,” Zbur said. “By modernizing how our county operates, Measure G will bring transparency, equity and stronger leadership to the forefront, making sure that the LGBTQ+ community and all communities have an effective voice at the table.”

There are also prominent detractors, including the council majority of Beverly Hills, although Horvath pointed to the support of Councilman John Mirisch, as well as the flipped support of an unnamed councilwoman.

“One of the council members from Beverly Hills came up [to me] and said she wished she had talked to me before she voted. Because, [she said], ‘Actually, this sounds really great, and we should be supporting it,’” Horvath said.

Barger said that when she explains the CEO portion of Measure G to residents, they are uniformly opposed.

“I’m hearing it in my community. People are sick and tired of politicians telling them what they think is best for them. They want to think for themselves,” she said.

“[The L.A. County Board of Supervisors] are the only government like this on the planet that has the executive, the legislative and quasi-judicial authority, all within a board of five people and so separating out that executive authority creates a check and balance,” Horvath countered. “We’ve seen the board do amazing things on the legislative front to pass incredible motions that are groundbreaking, and yet they fall short in their implementation, because there is no one person inside the county bureaucracy who is empowered to help implement that change … When five people are in charge, no one’s in charge, and not having that one person in charge really slows down our ability to implement change and progress that is desperately needed in Los Angeles County right now.”

Ultimately, the fate of board will come down to county voters.

Make no mistake, I’m termed out in 2028, so this is not about me,” Barger said. “This is about the county that I’ve worked for for 35 years, the county that I’ve committed to leaving in a better place than I found it, and this is absolutely a step backwards.”

“We know from our polling that a significant majority of Angelenos are really ready for this change now,” Horvath said. “I think there’s some disinformation that’s out there could cause people to possibly miss a truly once in a lifetime opportunity to reform their government. And so, taking the time to really understand what’s in [Measure G] is really critical.”