There will soon be a ‘mayor of L.A. County.' How much power should come with the job?
Soon, the most powerful Los Angeles County politician won't be the mayor of L.A. It won't be a county supervisor.
It will be the elected chief executive.
'It's probably going to be the second most powerful position in the state next to the governor,' said former West Covina Mayor Brian Calderón Tabatabai, one of 13 people now tasked with deciding just how much power should come with the post.
This week, the final five members were named to the county's 'governance reform task force.' The former politicians, union leaders, advocates and business owners will make recommendations on how to move forward with Measure G, the sprawling ballot measure approved by voters in November to overhaul L.A. County government.
Measure G was massive in scope but scant on details. That means members of the task force — five of whom were picked directly by supervisors — must figure out the contours of a new county ethics commission by 2026. They'll also help expand the five-person board to nine by 2032.
Perhaps most consequentially, they will have to hammer out the powers of the new chief executive, an elected official who will represent 10 million county residents — a position that some task force members don't even think should exist.
'I'm extremely concerned about the elected CEO,' said former Duarte Mayor John Fasana, a task force member. 'At this point, we have to try and find a way to make it work.'
Rewind to last November's election. The elected chief executive position was, by far, the most controversial part of the overhaul, and a bitter pill to swallow for some who were otherwise eager to see the Board of Supervisors expanded and ethics rules strengthened.
Currently, the chief executive, a role filled by Fesia Davenport, is appointed by the supervisors and works under them. She takes the first stab at the county budget and wrangles department heads, putting out whatever fires are erupting.
It's not a glamorous job — many people don't know it exists — but the chief executive, more than any other county leader, is responsible for keeping the place running smoothly.
With the passage of Measure G, the position will become a political one, beholden only to voters. Some have dubbed it the 'mayor of L.A. County.'
Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, who spearheaded the overhaul, said that one of the most influential positions in local government will now come out of the shadows and be directly accountable to voters.
Supervisor Kathryn Barger has been deeply skeptical, warning that it will diminish the supervisors' power and politicize a position that functions best behind the scenes. Supervisor Holly Mitchell had similar hesitations, as did some county employee unions.
Now, they've got to make it work.
Derek Hsieh, who heads the Assn. for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs as well as chairs the Coalition of County Unions, said both labor groups opposed Measure G and the creation of the elected chief executive. But now, as a member of the task force, he vowed to 'bring success to that decision.'
In interviews, some task force members — both supporters of Measure G and opponents — said they plan to tread carefully.
'I've heard murmuring, like what if we get someone like an [Alex] Villanueva running amok and burning bridges unnecessarily,' said Marcel Rodarte, who heads the California Contract Cities Assn., referring to the bombastic former sheriff. 'It's a possibility it could happen. I want to make sure that those nine supervisors have the ability to rein in the CEO.'
Rodarte and his colleagues will take the first stab at creating checks and balances. Should the chief executive be able to hire and fire department heads? What are the veto powers? How much control will the executive have over the county's purse strings? Currently, the position has no term limits — should that change?
Sara Sadhwani, a politics professor at Pomona College and a task force member, said she's already hearing concerns about the lack of term limits, which would put the chief executive on an uneven footing with supervisors, who must leave after three four-year terms. She said the task force may consider a change in state law that would permit term limits.
'Looking at the federal government, there need to be very real constraints on executive power,' she said. 'There has to be a healthy friction.'
Sadhwani said she's expecting some pushback to parts of the proposal from county supervisors, who may be less than pleased to see their power siphoned away.
'We can imagine there are board members who do not want to see those powers move to an executive branch,' she said.
Rob Quan, a transparency advocate, said he'll be watching closely.
'What I would like to see is this task force have the freedom and independence and insulation to come up with good, thoughtful recommendations,' he said. 'What I don't want to see is these supervisors using their commissioners as gladiators.'
— THREE-RING CIRCUS: L.A. city and county officials spent the past week in U.S. Dist. Judge David O. Carter's courtroom — either monitoring or participating in a multi-day evidentiary hearing on the city's settlement agreement with the L.A. Alliance for Human Rights. The stakes are high: the Alliance wants to place the city's homelessness programs into receivership, effectively removing control from Mayor Karen Bass, on the grounds that the city is not meeting its legal obligations for providing such services. The city says it has made its best efforts to comply with the agreement.
So who was in the room? City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto monitored the hearing at various points. City Administrative Officer Matt Szabo was grilled on the stand over multiple days. Dr. Estemaye Agonafer, deputy mayor for homelessness, was sometimes prickly during three-plus hours of questioning.
— WHEN DOES IT END? The testimony in the Alliance case is expected to spill into next week, although it's not clear how many more days are needed. Carter, who has remained unusually muted during this week's proceedings, declared at one point: 'Time's not a concern.'
— READY TO MOVE ON: Speaking of homelessness, Councilmember Tim McOsker is looking to bring an end to Bass' emergency declaration on homelessness, rescinding the mayor's power to award no-bid contracts and lease buildings without council approval. The move comes two and a half years after Bass declared an emergency. Councilmember Monica Rodriguez, an outspoken critic of the city's homeless programs, also has been a longtime supporter of terminating the emergency.
— WAGE WARRIORS: A coalition of airlines, hotels and concession companies at Los Angeles International Airport filed paperwork Thursday to force a citywide vote on a new ordinance hiking the minimum wage of hotel and airport workers to $30 per hour by 2028.
— FEELING POWERLESS: Former Animal Services General Manager Staycee Dains said in a series of interviews with The Times that she felt powerless to solve entrenched problems at her agency, including severe understaffing and mistreatment of shelter animals. Dains said she was repeatedly told by the city's personnel department that she couldn't fire problem employees. And she clashed with a union that represents shelter employees.
— MONEY IN THE MAIL: Many residents who lost their homes in the January wildfires should have received a tax refund after their damaged or destroyed properties were reassessed. But about 330 checks are in limbo after postal workers tried unsuccessfully to deliver them to vacant or destroyed homes.
— NO CHARGES: A former L.A. County probation official who was accused by more than two dozen women of sexually abusing them when they were minors will not be criminally prosecuted because the alleged incidents happened too long ago. Thomas Jackson, 58, has been named in dozens of lawsuits that were part of a historic $4-billion settlement.
— WHAT DISASTER? L.A. leaders declined to dramatically increase the budget of the city's Emergency Management Department, despite the many natural disasters that could hit the region in years to come. Facing a nearly $1-billion shortfall, the City Council passed a budget that rejected the funding bump asked for by department leaders.
— I SUED THE SHERIFF: Former Times reporter Maya Lau is suing Los Angeles County and Villanueva, the former sheriff, arguing that her 1st Amendment rights were violated. Lau's attorneys said she was the target of a sheriff's investigation that was 'designed to intimidate and punish' her for reporting about a leaked list of deputies with a history of misconduct.
That's it for this week! Send your questions, comments and gossip to LAontheRecord@latimes.com. Did a friend forward you this email? Sign up here to get it in your inbox every Saturday morning.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
7 vote centers open for District 1 Supervisor special election
SAN DIEGO (FOX 5/KUSI) — Voters living in San Diego County's First Supervisorial District can begin casting their ballots early starting Saturday, June 21, as part of the special general election to fill the district's vacant seat. Seven vote centers will open across the district and remain available daily from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. through Monday, June 30. On the final day of voting, Tuesday, July 1, six additional vote centers will open for a total of 13 locations, and voting hours will extend from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Here's a list of the seven vote centers that opened on Saturday, June 21: Bonita Vista Middle School – Cafeteria (650 Otay Lakes Rd., Chula Vista) Chula Vista City Hall (276 4th Ave., Chula Vista) MAAC Community Center (1387 3rd Ave., Chula Vista) South Bay Union School District – Burress Auditorium (601 Elm Ave., Imperial Beach) Mountain View Community Center – Back Meeting Room (641 S Boundary St., San Diego) San Ysidro Senior Center (125 E Park Ave., San Ysidro) Spring Valley Community Center – Olsen Room (8735 Jamacha Blvd., Spring Valley) Meet the candidates in the runoff for the Board of Supervisors District 1 seat Find a vote center near you by using this Vote Center Finder tool. Voters are encouraged to check for changes in voting locations since the April primary and confirm their eligibility at More than just a polling place, vote centers provide additional services. Here's what you can do at these centers: Vote in person or drop off your mail-in ballot. Use accessible ballot marking devices. Register to vote or update your registration and cast your ballot on the same day. Get assistance and materials in multiple languages. Election officials are reminding voters of the following: Ballot marking devices do not store or count votes — they simply print your selections, which are reviewed and submitted by hand to poll workers. Campaigning or electioneering — including signs, petitions, or advocacy materials — is prohibited within 100 feet of any vote center or drop box. Only residents of District 1 may vote in this election. Voting begins in runoff race for District 1 seat on Board of Supervisors Voters can also return ballots by mail — no postage required — or at one of the 29 official drop boxes located throughout the district. Drop boxes are open 24/7 and will close promptly at 8 p.m. on July 1. Voters must sign and date their return envelope for their vote to count. Find a drop box near you by using this Location Finder tool. District 1 spans from Barrio Logan and East Village in the north to the U.S./Mexico border in the south, and from the Pacific Ocean eastward to the Otay and San Miguel mountains. It includes cities like Chula Vista, Imperial Beach, National City, and communities such as Bonita, La Presa, and Lincoln Acres. The runoff for the empty District 1 seat, which was set after no candidate received enough votes to win outright earlier this year, pits two South Bay mayors against each other: Imperial Beach Mayor Paloma Aguirre and Chula Vista Mayor John McCann. Both are vying to serve the remainder of the term former Board of Supervisors Chair Nora Vargas abruptly vacated in the weeks after winning re-election. The winner of the special election will serve out the remainder of the current term, ending in January 2029. For a complete list of vote centers, drop box locations, or to check your voter status, visit or call 858-565-5800. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
14-06-2025
- Yahoo
Commission recommends Kern supes OK oil review, permitting plan
A high-stakes effort to resume local oil permitting advanced this week as Kern's Planning Commission voted Thursday night to recommend approval of the county's third attempt at a massive environmental review. The board voted 4-0 with Commissioner Joe Ashley, a local oil executive, absent. Next the controversial measure will head to the county Board of Supervisors, which is scheduled to consider certifying the review and adopting a related ordinance during a special meeting June 26. Because the board is seen as likely to approve the proposal over the objections of climate and environmental justice activists, the bigger challenge for the county may be getting the approval of state appellate court judges. They have ruled, as recently as two years ago, that the county's efforts violate the California Environmental Quality Act. Kern's latest attempt includes new concessions that would raise the costs oil companies face when applying for permission to drill in the county. If the legal bid falls short, permitting will remain in the hands of Sacramento, where producers complain that the process is slow and hobbled by politics. People attending Thursday's commission meeting spoke up in opposition and support for revisions that would allow the county to permit up to 26,970 new wells by 2035. The county estimates that, based on past experience and depending on barrel prices, it will give out no more than about 19,000 drilling permits during that time, and that many of those will merely replace other wells set to be idled. Relatively few people criticized the county effort on Thursday; if history is a guide, a much greater number of opponents will weigh in when the Board of Supervisors takes up the issue. Many groups see the permitting process as overly broad "fast-tracking" at a time when oil production should be curtailed for climate and health reasons. Policy Director Ema De La Rosa at the Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability urged the commission Thursday night to reject the proposal. She said oil and gas has historically impacted poor people and communities of color she said suffer disproportionately from illnesses including asthma, cancer and high-risk pregnancies. "Residents in Kern County already endure the worst air quality in the nation … and expanding these operations will only worsen the public health crisis and further burden already impacted communities," she said. Later she added, "Doubling down on fossil fuel reliance is a step in the wrong direction as the state is working toward a clean energy future." Director Lori Pesante of Sierra Club's Kern-Kaweah Chapter said in a statement ahead of Thursday's meeting it's time for the county to move past oil production. 'Kern's Planning Commission should prioritize clean air, new job opportunities in the renewable energy sector, and protecting the public from dangerous leaks and spills," she stated, "not double down on a failed approach that would give the oil industry a free pass to pollute our neighborhoods.' The architect of the county's effort, Director Lorelei Oviatt of Kern's Planning and Natural Resources Department, made the point oil production is still legal in the state, and that permitting done in Sacramento does not incorporate the 89 mitigation measures and standards Kern's system would impose for the protection of local air, water and biological and cultural resources. Oviatt said by email Friday the benefits of oil and gas production in Kern extend beyond the county, including to Southern California refineries that rely on local petroleum. "Returning Kern County to full environmentally protective permitting is critical for providing gasoline to consumers at prices we can all afford, stabilizing our local business community and providing investor confidence," she wrote. Since before it was initially adopted in 2015, the measure has been a top concern for local oil producers, which more recently are also dealing with a new state law forbidding oil work within 3,200 feet of a home, school or other sensitive site. Kern's proposed ordinance does not attempt to change that regulation. CEO Rock Zierman of the California Independent Petroleum Association trade group expressed support for the county's actions in an email Friday. "If we want any hope of saving the local oil industry and reducing gas prices, Kern must be empowered to take over permitting from the state, which is refusing to process permits in a timely manner' he stated. One of the county's newly proposed mitigation measures, included to address the appellate court's concerns, would prohibit new wells on farmland until old oil-field equipment is removed. Oil producers would also have to secure an ag easement within the county measuring the same size as any lost farmland. Additionally, oil companies applying for permits would have to pay into a fund that would match state investments in water systems serving local disadvantaged communities. Fees for each new oil well would amount to $9,732. It is projected to raise between $17.3 million and $25.9 million per year.
San Francisco Chronicle
14-06-2025
- San Francisco Chronicle
Here's how SFPD is proposing to cut down on overtime
San Francisco's interim police chief is proposing changes that he says will increase the number of officers fighting crime while also reducing the department's massive overtime spending. Yep, who recently took over from Chief Bill Scott, told the Board of Supervisors during a special budget meeting on Friday that he wants to start using retired police officers to staff a police reserve unit and special event officer program. The program would supplement police staffing and potentially cut down on the need for as much overtime as the department deals with what it says is a shortage of hundreds of officers. The number of police officers earning more than $100,000 in overtime more than tripled from 2021 to 2023, fueling concerns about officer performance, burnout and unsustainable taxpayer expenses. The chief's proposal comes as city officials pour over Mayor Daniel Lurie's proposed budget, which must close a roughly $800 million deficit. The plan calls for laying off over 100 workers, eliminating hundreds of vacant positions and cutting nearly $200 million in grant funds and contracts. The mayor's budget retains funding for police, fire and other public safety agencies as part of his pledge to revitalize the city by focusing on safety and the economy. The Board of Supervisors will hear from every city department throughout June and propose changes for the mayor to consider. The mayor must sign the budget by Aug. 1. Yep said retired officers in the new reserve unit will have full police powers and be assigned based on experience, whether that's working a foot beat or doing behind-the-scenes investigative work for the department. Meanwhile, retirees in the special events officer program would be assigned to specific events, such as Super Bowl celebrations, protests or festivals, and also have full police powers. The plan also calls for retaining the department's existing community ambassador program staffed by unarmed retirees on foot patrols in neighborhoods the department struggles to staff. Yep admitted he's still working on the details, but that the programs 'would give our current officers a break from mandatory overtime.' The department said the move would mean increasing the temporary salary budget from $3.4 million to $8.1 million. As a result, the department's proposed overtime budget would grow from $71 million to about $80 million. But Yep explained that by paying retirees a flat rate that is less than the overtime rate, the move will eventually yield savings. In May, San Francisco supervisors lambasted the department over its apparent inability to rein in public safety costs but ultimately approved $61 million in funds for overtime spending. A recent audit found that SFPD's overtime spending more than doubled from $52.9 million in 2018 to $108.4 million in 2023. The audit also found that about 12% of the cops who worked overtime were responsible for nearly a third of all SFPD overtime spending in the last year of the review. The department is also trying to save money by laying off six people in its civilian workforce and will eliminate 25 vacant civilian positions. Still, Supervisor Connie Chan, who chairs the Board of Supervisors budget committee, said that the department needs to do more to help close budget gaps. Chan is worried about social services funding that's on the chopping block in Lurie's proposed budget. Chan said the department should lower overtime spending and asked Yep to consider eliminating civilian management positions to find more savings. 'It's regrettable to hear about layoffs of some of the police department staff, particularly civilians,' Chan said. 'But I'm saying this to every department. I'd really like for you to work with us to evaluate the need for certain management positions. I know it's tough… but consider… are those necessary?'
