VIEWPOINT -
“I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!”
— Howard Beale in Paddy Chayefsky’s Network (1976)
That famous line from Paddy Chayefsky’s Network probably captures how a growing number of Los Angeles residents feel about their city government. But anger alone changes very little. It fades. Elections come and go. City Hall’s political machinery remains.
Los Angeles residents have plenty to be angry about. Homelessness remains a crisis. Public safety concerns persist. Streets and infrastructure deteriorate. Taxpayers watch billions of dollars move through government while repeatedly asking a basic question: Where are the results?
Residents attend meetings, send emails, sign petitions, testify during public comment, organize neighborhood campaigns and demand answers. Yet too often, City Hall simply waits them out.
That is the fundamental problem. Los Angeles has plenty of frustrated citizens, neighborhood organizations and taxpayer advocates, but it lacks a permanent, citywide citizens’ organization whose specific purpose is to hold elected officials accountable between elections.
We believe it is time to create one.
It should be nonpartisan, largely volunteer-driven and built around a simple principle: elected officials should know that failure has consequences. The organization would track promises and performance, document failures, inform voters, demand corrective action and, when an elected official demonstrates sustained incompetence, misconduct or disregard for the public, be prepared to support the ultimate tool voters possess between regular elections: recall.
A recall should never be the first response to political disagreement. But neither should it be an empty constitutional right that exists on paper because ordinary citizens lack the organization, legal assistance and manpower necessary to use it.
Los Angeles voters need an institution capable of turning public frustration into sustained civic action.
Politicians and the institutions surrounding them organize every day of the year. They have campaign committees, consultants, lobbyists, donor networks, unions, political organizations, advocacy groups, attorneys, public-relations professionals, communications operations and sophisticated databases.
They understand something ordinary citizens too often forget: Political power belongs to those who remain organized after everyone else goes home.
Residents, by contrast, often mobilize only after something has gone seriously wrong. A homeless encampment becomes dangerous. Crime increases. A street deteriorates. A controversial development appears. A city department fails to deliver. Taxpayer money disappears into another program whose results are difficult to measure.
People show up. For a few weeks or months, City Hall feels the pressure. Then the meeting ends. The headlines disappear. Volunteers become exhausted. Neighborhood coalitions dissolve. Residents return to their families, businesses and jobs.
But the political machinery remains.
Government learns a dangerous lesson: Wait long enough, and the public will eventually go away.
That cycle must end.
Los Angeles needs a permanent, independent, volunteer-driven civic organization capable of monitoring government performance across all 15 City Council districts.
Its mission should be straightforward: Follow the money. Track the promises. Document the results. Demand corrective action. And when serious failures continue, create consequences.
This should not be a partisan organization. It should not exist to launch endless recall campaigns, settle political scores or attack elected officials over ordinary policy disagreements. Its purpose should be accountability: measurable, documented and sustained.
· Track campaign promises, voting records, budgets, contracts, audits and measurable government performance.
· Document serious neighborhood and citywide failures.
· Verify facts before publishing accusations or conclusions.
· Produce council-district and citywide accountability reports.
· Recommend specific corrective actions.
· Give elected officials a reasonable opportunity to respond.
· Build a citywide network of researchers, attorneys, accountants, neighborhood leaders and volunteers.
· Refer credible evidence of fraud, corruption or unlawful conduct to appropriate oversight or law-enforcement authorities.
· Support lawful political remedies including recall when clearly established standards have been met.
The objective is not permanent political warfare. The objective is to make ignoring the public politically expensive.
Reports alone will not change City Hall. Public comments alone will not change City Hall. Angry emails alone will not change City Hall.
Accountability matters only when elected officials understand that persistent failure can eventually produce consequences.
That does not mean recalling officials because citizens disagree with a vote or policy. Recall should remain an extraordinary remedy. But it must remain a real one.
When corruption, abuse of office, serious violations of the public trust, or persistent failure to perform essential governmental duties are documented, and reasonable efforts to obtain corrective action have failed, citizens must be prepared to use every lawful democratic mechanism available to them.
Otherwise, “accountability” becomes another word politicians learn to ignore.
Patterns matter, too. An elected official should not be insulated from accountability merely because no single incident is catastrophic. Repeatedly disregarding legitimate constituent concerns, refusing to correct documented failures and consistently failing to represent a district can eventually become its own record of failure.
Public office is not political property. It belongs to the people.
A citizens’ accountability organization cannot demand transparency from government while operating behind closed doors itself. Its credibility would depend on applying the same standards to everyone.
Written procedures should govern investigations, reports, corrective-action recommendations and decisions involving recall. Evidence should be documented. Significant financial support should be disclosed. Officials criticized in major reports should receive a reasonable opportunity to respond.
Decisions to support recalls should require formal review and a recorded vote under clearly established standards.
Most importantly, the organization must never become a front for a political party, candidate, union, corporation, developer, donor or ideological faction.
The same rules must apply whether the official being scrutinized is popular or unpopular, Democrat or Republican, progressive or conservative, friend or political opponent.
Credibility requires consistency. The moment accountability becomes selective, it stops being accountability.
Building this organization does not require a billionaire. It does not require a political party. It requires citizens willing to contribute their professional skills and perhaps a few hours each month.
Attorneys can advise on election law, public-records requests, municipal procedures, nonprofit governance and recall requirements. Accountants and financial analysts can examine budgets, contracts, bond measures, audits and spending. Researchers can review public records and verify government claims. Retired public employees can help residents understand how departments actually operate.
Neighborhood leaders can document conditions on the ground. Writers and editors can translate complicated government documents into language ordinary citizens can understand. Technology professionals can build systems for tracking promises, votes, spending and performance. Communications professionals can make sure important findings do not disappear inside hundreds of pages of government reports that almost nobody reads.
Imagine hundreds or eventually thousands of Los Angeles residents contributing just a few hours each month.
That is not merely a protest movement. That is civic infrastructure.
A permanent organization would preserve something citizen movements repeatedly lose: institutional memory.
Every time another crisis erupts, residents scramble to learn how City Hall works. Which department has jurisdiction? Which official is responsible? Which records should be requested? What deadlines apply? What does the law actually say?
By the time residents understand the system, months may have passed. Then the controversy ends, the coalition disperses and much of that hard-earned knowledge disappears.
The next neighborhood starts over from zero. That is an enormous advantage for established political institutions.
A permanent citizens’ network could retain research, preserve records, train volunteers, share successful strategies and connect communities across all 15 council districts.
If residents in one part of Los Angeles discover how to force action on a neglected municipal problem, residents elsewhere should not have to reinvent the process.
Knowledge should travel faster than bureaucracy.
California law gives voters the power to recall elected officials through an established legal process. Los Angeles has its own requirements under the City Election Code and procedures administered by the City Clerk.
But having the legal right to recall an official and possessing the organizational capacity to carry out a lawful recall are very different things.
A serious recall effort requires legal compliance, fundraising, communications, signature gathering, volunteer coordination, data management, deadlines and disciplined planning. Trying to construct that infrastructure after a political crisis has already erupted is a recipe for confusion and failure.
The time to build civic capacity is before it is needed.
And here is the paradox: A credible ability to hold officials accountable may make recalls less necessary.
Imagine City Hall knowing that campaign promises are being recorded. Budgets are being examined. Contracts are being reviewed. Performance is being measured. Failures are being documented. And residents possess the organizational infrastructure to keep asking questions long after the television cameras disappear.
Officials may become considerably more responsive before problems reach the breaking point.
That is the real objective. Not endless recalls. Not permanent outrage. Better government.
Los Angeles residents will continue to disagree about housing, policing, taxes, development, homelessness, transportation, labor policy and the appropriate size of government. Those debates are legitimate.
But accountability should not be ideological.
Democrats, Republicans, independents and voters with no party preference should be able to agree on several fundamental principles:
Public money must be accounted for. Laws must be followed. Government claims must be verifiable.
Core services must be competently delivered. Elected officials must explain their decisions.
And public officials must ultimately answer to the people who elected them. Elections determine who gets power. Accountability determines what happens after they get it.
Los Angeles does not need another organization that issues statements, holds occasional meetings and disappears when public attention moves elsewhere.
It needs an institution with memory. An institution with expertise. An institution capable of following the money, preserving evidence, educating residents and keeping pressure on government month after month and year after year.
Politicians organize every day. Lobbyists organize every day. Special interests organize every day. Unions, developers, advocacy organizations, consultants and political operatives do not pack up after Election Day.
Why should citizens?
We are seeking attorneys, accountants, financial analysts, researchers, neighborhood leaders, retired public employees, writers, communications professionals, technology specialists and ordinary residents willing to contribute a few hours each month toward building a permanent Los Angeles citizens’ accountability network.
Residents interested in helping establish this effort may contact:
History teaches us that entrenched institutions rarely reform themselves simply because citizens ask them to. Lasting reform begins when informed citizens organize, remain engaged, and refuse to allow government failure to become normal.
Los Angeles residents have been angry long enough.
Now they need to organize. Now they need to stay organized. And City Hall needs to know they are not going away.
Los Angeles City Clerk — Petition and Measure Information
https://clerk.lacity.gov/elections/petition-and-measure-info
Los Angeles Election Code
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/los_angeles/latest/laac/0-0-0-1699
(Eliot Cohen is a longtime civic advocate who has served on the Neighborhood Council, the Van Nuys Airport Citizens Advisory Council, and the Board of Homeowners of Encino, where he was president of HOME for over seven years. A retired Wall Street executive with a 35-year career, Eliot brings a sharp eye to local governance. He critiques the bureaucratic missteps of City, County, and State officials. Eliot and his wife split their time between Los Angeles and Baja Norte, Mexico.)
(Mihran Kalaydjian is a seasoned public affairs and government relations professional with more than twenty years of experience in legislative affairs, public policy, community relations, and strategic communications. A respected civic leader and education advocate, he has spearheaded numerous academic and community initiatives, shaping dialogue and driving reform in local and regional political forums. His career reflects a steadfast commitment to transparency, accountability, and public service across Los Angeles and beyond.)
