Comments
THE BOTTOM LINE - At a time when Angelenos are waiting months for building permits, struggling with homelessness, rebuilding after devastating wildfires, navigating deteriorating streets, and wondering whether City Hall can deliver on even its most basic responsibilities, the Los Angeles City Council has decided it has another priority.
Giving itself the flexibility to hold fewer required public meetings.
Last month, the Council voted 12-0 to place a measure on the November ballot that would remove the City Charter's requirement that the full Council meet at least three days each week. If voters approve the measure, future Councils could choose to hold fewer regular meetings.
Supporters call it modernization.
Many residents are likely to see something else.
Los Angeles doesn't have a meeting problem. It has a performance problem.
That distinction matters.
Council members are among the highest-paid local legislators in the United States. Their base salaries approach approximately $245,000 a year, before generous benefits, taxpayer-funded staff, office budgets, and other public resources.
No one questions that Council members spend time outside Council chambers meeting with constituents, attending community events, serving on committees, and addressing district concerns. Public service extends well beyond a televised meeting.
But that is not the issue before voters.
The issue is accountability.
Regular Council meetings are one of the few occasions when every elected member must conduct the public's business in full view of the people they represent. Budgets are debated. Contracts are approved. Land-use decisions are made. Public safety policies are discussed. Residents can address their elected officials directly, and every vote becomes part of the public record.
Government does not become more accountable by becoming less visible.
Supporters argue that the change would provide greater flexibility and allow members to devote more time to district work while continuing committee meetings. They also point to other legislative bodies, including the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and several major city councils, that meet less frequently.
Those arguments deserve consideration.
But so does another question.
What has City Hall done to earn that flexibility?
The answer is difficult to find.
Thousands of residents continue to navigate the slow and often frustrating process of rebuilding after recent wildfires. Neighborhoods throughout Los Angeles continue to grapple with homelessness, illegal dumping, public safety concerns, aging infrastructure, and permitting delays that frustrate homeowners and businesses alike. Public confidence in City Hall has been tested repeatedly.
Whether those challenges stem from the Council, the Mayor, city departments, state mandates, or broader structural issues, residents see the same result: government that too often feels slow, fragmented, and unresponsive.
That is why this proposal strikes so many people as tone-deaf.
When trust in government is fragile, reducing one of its most visible accountability requirements sends the wrong signal.
The public is not asking elected officials to spend less time in public session.
The public is asking them to produce better results.
Safer neighborhoods. Cleaner streets. Faster disaster recovery. Quicker permits. Responsible budgeting. Reliable city services.
Government earns credibility through performance not promises.
Most Angelenos cannot tell their employer they would like fewer required public obligations while expecting the same compensation. Teachers don't. Firefighters don't. Police officers don't. Nurses don't. Construction workers don't. Small-business owners certainly don't.
Public officials should not expect voters to embrace that idea lightly either.
Los Angeles should aspire to become the best-governed big city in America not simply compare itself to jurisdictions that meet less frequently. Leadership is measured by outcomes, not schedules. Streets are either repaired or they are not. Encampments are either reduced or they are not. Permits are either issued promptly or they are not. Neighborhoods either become safer or they do not.
The public judges government by results.
If City Hall demonstrates sustained progress more efficient permitting, stronger public safety, meaningful improvements in homelessness, better infrastructure, and responsible fiscal management—then conversations about restructuring government may naturally evolve.
But asking voters for greater flexibility before delivering measurable improvements risks putting the cart before the horse.
This ballot measure ultimately belongs to the people of Los Angeles.
Before casting their ballots, voters should ask one straightforward question:
Has City Hall earned the right to reduce one of its most important public accountability requirements?
For many Angelenos, the answer may well be no.
Los Angeles is not struggling because the City Council meets too often.
It is struggling because too many of the city's most pressing problems remain unresolved.
The people of Los Angeles deserve a government that earns trust through results, respects the importance of public accountability, and remembers that every day in public office is a day spent serving the public.
Less accountability is not modernization.
It is a test of public trust.
And trust must be earned not assumed.
(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.)
