Comments
JOHN’S REPORT - The New York Times’ recent article detailing the extensive corruption in Los Angeles City Hall was undoubtedly an eye-opener for many unfamiliar with La La Land’s shameful political history. But sadly, for Angelenos, this is not news. For decades, we've watched scandals unfold and corrupt public servants fall prey to private greed and done nothing about it.
But corruption isn’t the result of Democratic super majorities, as some might say, because local elected officials in California are, by law, non-partisan. And if we place all the blame on the corrupt city council members, rather than the institutional and structural impediments that sabotage clean governance, we’ll never get out of this mess. We must find ways to encourage the best of us to become public servants while creating tougher guardrails when the worst of us slip through the cracks. We must put structures in place that make corruption less likely to occur while fostering transparency, fiscal responsibility, and more honest and effective local government.
Los Angeles' government was designed nearly a century ago when the city was 25% of its current size. The “old” Los Angeles was much more compact and homogeneous. The fifteen council members represented 50,000 residents. Today, however, each of these fifteen members represents more than 260,000 residents. That's more people than live in Buffalo, Boise, or Baton Rouge. Times have changed dramatically, and so must LA City Hall.
First—and I can’t believe I’m saying this—LA needs more politicians. New York has fifty-one council members. The City of Chicago has fifty aldermen. Our fifteen “mini-mayors” of the 2nd largest city in America earn a quarter of a million dollars annually, and they have huge discretionary budgets, a large staff, free cars and more perks than ordinary Angelenos could possibly dream of.
It’s time to double the size of the council and by doing so cut in half the size of City Council districts they represent. This approach to reforming LA City government is revenue-neutral because it also requires cutting in half the individual council member’s salary, perks, staff, and discretionary budget. They will earn what Big Apple council members earn, but far less than their current salary which is higher than the Governor of California.
The benefits of smaller districts will be immediate and sweeping. Council members will be much closer to the communities they serve and know those communities and constituents more intimately. The district diminution will help empower local neighborhoods with council members who are more accountable, more accessible and who respond rapidly to their concerns regarding everything from homelessness to public safety to development and zoning decisions. Representatives of more intimate districts will more likely fight for taxpayers—rather than special interests or themselves.
If you think this is crazy, then ask any New Yorker if they would be willing to share a representative with double the number of constituents, pay them twice what they are currently making, add free cars, and other extravagant perks. You couldn't print their response in this newspaper.
Smaller districts won’t work unless we immediately create an independent redistricting commission chosen by the people—not the elected officials who stand to benefit from the neighborhood and constituent horse trading that happens behind closed doors after every census. These backroom deals were made famous when a clandestine recording was released publicly of a small group of council members—led by the council president—who made vile and racist comments as they discussed how to gerrymander their own districts in ways that protected their self-interest.
The people—not the politicians— must be in charge of establishing districts where communities of interest will be held together. No more jamming Eagle Rock and downtown's Historic Core or Westchester and Pacific Palisades together in ill-formed districts. City leadership will become much more diverse as neighborhoods like Koreatown, which have long sought more direct representation, achieve it.
Similar proposals to these have failed because politicians and lobbyists fought to protect their power base and led voters to believe that change—of any kind—would increase the cost of city government. So it is that we, the people who vote for leaders and against government reform, bear some responsibility. As Orwell says in his dystopic and prescient novel 1984, “a people who elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.”
The bottom line is this: We need to increase focus, responsiveness, accountability, and diversity in City government. Our current structure is holding us back. Let’s decrease the size of Council districts and bring government closer to the people it serves.
(John Shallman is an Award-winning political media consultant and crisis management expert and President of Shallman Communications in Los Angeles. Author of the national best-selling book, Return from Siberia. Reprinted with permission.)
