Los Angeles County’s Governance Reform Task Force laid out an ambitious schedule for getting its first round of policy recommendations regarding the new elected office of county executive to the Board of Supervisors. The key date was Labor Day, which in the political world traditionally separates summer legislative recesses from the fall dash toward election day.
In this case, Sept. 7 also happened to be the day that would-be candidates for the new position could begin raising campaign donations. They, and potential contributors, ought to have a feel for what the job will entail before asking for, or shelling out, money. Measure G left a lot of blanks to be filled.
The Task Force set Sept. 9 for a final vote on early recommendations. That would mean moving the package to the board, which it was hoped would set a “cluster” meeting among supervisor staffs for Sept. 23. The Board of Supervisors would vote on Oct. 6, a month before the distraction of November midterm returns.
Task Force Chair Pro Tem Sara Sadhwani discusses a roll-out plan for needed work in advance of the county's December 2028 transition to its new form of governance under Measure G. (GRTF meeting video).
When the current election dust settles, and we know who the mayor of Los Angeles will be and whether Democrats or Republicans will control Congress, attention will turn to the next countywide election: the March 2028 primary. That ballot will include candidates to be the first Los Angeles County executive. The clock is ticking. The Task Force has to move fast.
But it was moving too fast, according to many members at the Sept. 9 meeting in East Los Angeles. Proposed rules and funding plans for the county executive, the county legislative analyst and the office of budget and management were amended during closed meetings of the ad hoc committee focused on those offices. Amid partial markups and verbal amendments (and lengthy discussion over the distinction between amendments and revisions), Task Force members said it was unclear exactly what was before them.
Task Force member Julia Mockeridge explains why she can't vote to adopt a package of revised recommendations. Numerous other members agreed. (Source: GRTF video screenshot).
So they delayed their vote until Wednesday, Sept. 16, to follow a previously scheduled meeting to interview six finalists for a slot on the new county Ethics Commission, which is also mandated by Measure G.
The Task Force’s schedule for shaping that commission also slipped a bit earlier this year. They got the job done anyway, as the applicant interviews show.
One of the bigger amendments (or revisions?) the Task Force is expected to forward to the Board of Supervisors is in the county legislative analyst position. An earlier plan was to start phasing in funding and employee transfers to the new office to gradually get it ready for the new analyst to be appointed in 2028, when the executive is elected. The new plan is to jump in now, feet first. Move over your funding and your people right now, the Task Force is expected to advise the board. Start your nationwide search for the right person. Get yourselves a legislative analyst as soon as possible.
The Task Force still has its eye on the clock and the calendar. Members talked about a roadmap for, among other things, educating the public about the shape of their new county government. Start too soon, and there will be little interest. Wait too long, and the initiative will have been ceded to candidates and campaigns.
One date that ought to loom large for a full-court public-engagement press is Nov. 7, 2027, a year before the general election at which the executive would be elected if there is a runoff.
Previously: "Twenty extra pizzas."