Comments
WESTSIDE - While the hope and thought of actual charter reform remains alive, the Los Angeles City Council did all it could to politically castrate any real revisions as this inept city democracy will essentially remain operating and intact.
The seemingly biggest disappointment of the process is that the most consequential structural reform—an expansion of the Los Angeles City Council from 15 to 25 members has been shelved indefinitely, despite being the most important of reforms and recommendations. The council basically punted, took the air out of the ball, went into a proverbial "four-corner" stall that protects this embedded membership of insiders versus democratic expansion that would provide greater and more effective representation from a body still living in the stone age.
New York City, with a population twice that of Los Angeles, has a council membership of 51, while Chicago is composed of 50 council wards with a population roughly one million less than LA!
There is no logical defense of retaining just 15 council districts in 2026.
It is nothing but a political protection plan of governmental power for the embedded few.
So, what is likely to appear on the November ballot?
The prospect of a "non-citizen" voting authority allowing non-US residents to actually vote in municipal elections such as Mayor and members of the city Council! If one needed a single reason why council expansion necessary, it is the notion of giving citizen rights to non-citizens that undermines the whole notion of becoming a citizen of the United States in the first place.
And while these council members have no problem giving constitutional privileges to anyone, they are seeking greater control and authority over the Los Angeles Police Department and their ability to function and operate without political interference. For the balance of power of law enforcement being saddled with political interference further erodes and deteriorates the department's relationship with elected officials immune from real accountability or scrutiny themselves.
In other words, "do as I say and not as I do."
Various changes regarding overall municipal government accountability regarding administrative oversight, budgeting, auditing, vacancies, ethics and procedures, could find its way on the November ballot without much controversy or fanfare. And while many of these topics were at the heart of structural city charter reform, actual change has been at a snail pace, and just another example of protecting an outdated and corrupt city government status quo!
Regarding the ability to bolster and expand the powers of the City Controller are admirable, stronger auditing and financial oversight and independence have not happened. Most importantly, this city council fears an independent controller they cannot control, and in Kenneth Mejia you have a professional CPA who has strong public support and no affiliation to political structure.
The Charter Reform Commission recommended expanding the Council from 15 to 25 districts; a change many argue is long overdue in a city of nearly four million residents. The commission, civic assembly participants, and governance advocates all supported putting the issue before voters.
But this commonsense proposal will never see ink on a ballot.
Why?
- Incumbent council members would lose influence.
- Redistricting could become gerrymandering and undermine practical apportionment.
- Cost would be used to undermine the expansion of democracy and diversity.
- Since there is no consensus on how the additional districts would be drawn, creating a third party to expand the council was never considered and avoided.
- Most sitting council members are reluctant to fundamentally alter the city's power structure.
In what many desired to be an advocacy of sweeping municipal reform and change, has become nothing but political window dressing, failing to address what is essential because self-analysis of the problems by the city council is virtually impossible based on make-up and the greed to keep power at all costs.
Stronger neighborhood councils, independent commissions, budgeting reform, greater checks and balances are being placed on the back burner for more "study" when the end result is to kill any sense of actual reform!
In the end, most of these ideas are likely to be postponed, delayed, watered down, or referred for more future study rather than adopted in any one election cycle.
Unfortunately, this is not a "rewriting" of the charter as Los Angeles is not undertaking a wholesale constitutional convention. Instead, voters are likely to see a series of targeted amendments that will protect and not tear down institutional and embedded fundamentals that prevent actual and structural change.
The political fantasy of real reform has been exposed by the actions, not the words of a city council that likes things just the way they are.
The ultimate result is likely to be a ballot that contains symbolically significant but structurally insignificant reforms. The biggest governance question—whether Los Angeles should continue to be governed by only 15 council districts—appears likely to be deferred forever!
(Nick Antonicello is a thirty-three-year resident of Venice and previously served as a legislative aide to the New Jersey General Assembly and Senate. A contributor to City Watch LA, you can contact him via e-mail at [email protected].)
