Comments
THE BOTTOM LINE - Los Angeles voters will not get a chance this year to decide whether to expand the size of the City Council. They will not vote on whether noncitizens should be allowed to participate in city elections, either.
Those proposals, along with other major changes to city government, were delayed, sidelined, or pushed into the future as the Los Angeles City Council raced to finish its work before summer recess.
But one proposal survived: fewer required City Council meetings.
That tells Angelenos something about City Hall’s priorities.
Los Angeles is struggling with homelessness, public safety concerns, deteriorating streets and sidewalks, illegal dumping, enormous legal liabilities, and continuing pressure on the city budget. Residents wait for basic services, neighborhoods fight for attention, and city departments routinely say they lack the staff and resources to meet public demand.
Yet City Hall found time to ask voters whether its elected officials should be required to meet less often.
The proposal would reduce the City Charter’s minimum requirement from three Council meetings per week to one. Supporters argue that fewer mandatory meetings would give Councilmembers more time to work in their districts, meet constituents and focus on policy.
Fine. Then prove it.
What Will Angelenos Get in Return?
If Councilmembers want voters to reduce their required public meeting schedule, the first question is simple: What exactly will the public receive in return?
Will constituent calls be returned sooner? Will illegal dumping complaints be resolved faster? Will Councilmembers attend more Neighborhood Council meetings? Will residents have greater access to their representatives?
These are reasonable questions before reducing a public obligation imposed on some of the most powerful municipal elected officials in America.
The argument cannot simply be that Councilmembers are busy. Everyone knows they are busy. The question is whether fewer required public meetings will make Los Angeles better governed.
If the answer is yes, show us the evidence.
Public Meetings Are Part of Governing
No serious person believes Councilmembers should spend every hour sitting in Council Chambers. District work, constituent services, neighborhood visits and responding to emergencies are essential responsibilities.
But public meetings are also part of the job.
They are where legislation is debated, taxpayer money is allocated, contracts are approved, departments are questioned and elected officials cast votes affecting millions of people.
Council meetings create a public record, expose disagreements and force elected officials to take positions. They allow residents, journalists and watchdogs to observe government in action.
Public meetings are not an interruption of governing. They are governing.
Supporters point out that additional meetings could still be scheduled when necessary. That misses the point.
There is a fundamental difference between a public meeting required by the City Charter and one elected officials may choose to schedule. One is an obligation. The other is an option.
Los Angeles has experienced enough scandals and failures of accountability to understand why that distinction matters.
Why Is Reform Always Delayed?
The contrast with other proposed reforms is difficult to ignore.
Los Angeles has debated expanding its 15-member City Council for years. The city has debated ethics reform, greater transparency, and stronger public accountability.
Major reforms are always described as complicated. They require more study, more hearings, more negotiation, and more time.
But reducing the minimum number of required Council meetings? That made it through.
Voters should notice the difference.
There is a legitimate argument that Council meetings can be inefficient. So, fix them.
Reduce excessive ceremonial presentations. Manage agendas more effectively. Stop allowing political theater to consume hours while major contracts and policy decisions receive limited discussion.
Hold more evening meetings so working Angelenos can participate. Take some meetings into communities outside downtown. Give residents more time to examine major proposals before votes. Make agendas understandable to people who do not have lobbyists or lawyers following City Hall every day.
Those would be meaningful reforms. They would make government more accessible and efficient.
Simply requiring fewer meetings guarantees neither.
City Hall Has the Burden of Proof
Los Angeles residents are constantly asked to accept less: fewer police officers on the streets, slower repairs, reduced services, longer waits and higher costs.
Now voters are being asked to consider whether their elected representatives should also be required to meet less often.
Perhaps the proposal will improve government. Perhaps Councilmembers will spend every additional hour solving neighborhood problems, meeting constituents, and forcing city departments to perform better.
If that is the case, City Hall should be able to prove it.
Set measurable goals. Track constituent response times. Publish district service data. Show increased community engagement. Demonstrate that fewer Council meetings actually produce better government.
Until then, skepticism is not cynicism. It is common sense.
Los Angeles voters will not get to decide this year whether their City Council should be larger and more representative. Other ambitious reforms were delayed or pushed aside.
But voters will get to decide whether Councilmembers should be required to meet less often.
That may tell Angelenos more about City Hall’s priorities than any ballot argument ever could.
(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.)
