Unions representing thousands of Los Angeles County workers are boycotting plans to elect a county chief executive, warning the move would “politicize” the position.
Union leaders representing firefighters, paramedics, probation officers and sheriff’s deputies said Tuesday that county supervisors should abandon plans to let voters elect a chief executive who would manage county operations and oversee the budget.
The proposal is part of a larger charter amendment scheduled for the Nov. 5 vote that would redesign county government by increasing the number of supervisors from five to nine, creating a budget and management director, creating a legislative analysts, and formed a new ethics commission to combat corruption.
Derek Hsieh, executive director of the association. A Los Angeles deputy sheriff said the overall proposal introduced last month was rushed to voters without understanding the potential costs and impact on other county services.
“We think it was rushed,” he said. “The idea that the whole thing costs zero is simply not true. It may not require new taxes, but they will reduce other services to fund it.
Hsieh said his union has not yet taken a position on the larger ballot proposal. But he noted that many of the county’s other employee unions are just beginning to review the details and decide whether to get involved.
The county already has an administrator who is appointed by and may be removed by the five supervisors. Hsieh believes the elected chief executive will build his own political power base, setting the stage for a power struggle with the board and confusion about who is in charge.
Supervisors voted 3-2 on Tuesday to approve an ordinance that would put changes to county government on the Nov. 5 ballot. Supervisors Kathryn Barger and Holly Mitchell voted against it.
Another board vote will be needed to secure the proposal’s spot on the ballot.
Before Tuesday’s vote, Barger and Mitchell unsuccessfully tried to remove language requiring the election of a countywide executive. Barger said she is concerned that a countywide executive elected by a simple majority may not feel obligated to serve every community in the county.
“I don’t think a politicized executive would be better for the county or my constituents,” she said.
Under the ballot proposal, the elected county executive would take office in 2028 and the board expansion would occur in 2032.
Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, who co-authored the proposal with Supervisor Janice Hahn, said it would make the county more responsive to the needs of its 10 million residents. She believes the new system will actually reduce confusion, with department heads reporting to the chief executive instead of five supervisors. She rejected the idea that this would have a harmful impact, saying the charter amendment “does not propose any form of service cuts”.
Horvath also echoed claims that the board will ultimately “politicize” the county’s top executive.
“I think that’s one way of looking at it – if that’s how you look at direct democracy,” she said. “I think [the proposal] Make sure this position…is accountable to the public, as we all are.
Regulators have been divided in recent weeks over the Horwath-Hahn proposal, which would expand the size of the board of directors for the first time in more than a century.
Supporters say the expansion of the board would increase representation in some communities and create new opportunities for Latinos and Asian Americans to win seats. The arguments come from elected officials in smaller cities in the San Gabriel Valley, including Monterey Park, Alhambra and West Covina, as well as several advocacy groups.
Supervisor Hilda Solis, who voted in favor of the ballot measure, noted that she is the only Latina among the five board members and that the county’s population is nearly 50 percent Latinx. She also targeted critics of the proposal.
“There are a lot of people who are scared, thinking they’re going to lose power, thinking they’re going to lose some sort of position,” she said.
Each director earns about $280,000 a year and represents about 2 million people, overseeing a range of services including health care, mental health and social services for the county’s homeless population.
Barger and Mitchell said they have long supported expanding the board. But they questioned whether the number of nine regulators was appropriate, while also questioning the idea that proposed governance changes would have no cost impact.
The two called for a fiscal analysis of all countywide ballot measures. The proposal passed unanimously on Tuesday, ensuring voters receive information about the financial impact of plans to reshape county government.
“We have a responsibility to make sure voters have a clear understanding of all costs,” Mitchell said.
Meanwhile, it’s unclear whether criticism from the county employees union will cause trouble for the proposed ballot measure.
AFSCME Local 685, which represents 2,400 county workers including probation officers, said it has not yet taken a position on the expanded ballot measure, although it opposes the election of a county CEO.
“Managing a $43 billion budget and 116,000 employees … is the job of working professionals, not politicians,” the union’s executive committee said. “We strongly oppose an elected county executive and therefore have not yet taken a position on the entire potential measure.”
Los Angeles County Firefighters Local 1014 President Dave Gillotte on Tuesday urged the board to remove plans to elect a countywide executive from a larger ballot initiative. A spokesman for his union did not comment on whether the group opposed other elements of the proposal.
Times staff writer Rebecca Ellis contributed to this report.
