{"id":397314,"date":"2025-11-22T16:50:13","date_gmt":"2025-11-22T16:50:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/397314\/"},"modified":"2025-11-22T16:50:13","modified_gmt":"2025-11-22T16:50:13","slug":"voters-are-glum-l-a-county-may-need-them-to-fix-its-bureaucratic-screw-up","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/397314\/","title":{"rendered":"Voters are glum. L.A. County may need them to fix its bureaucratic screw-up"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

L.A. County voters are fuming.<\/p>\n

Two out of three think the county is headed in the wrong direction. Four out of five feel its leaders are closely connected to \u201cbig money interests, lobbyists, and developers,\u201d and the same fraction felt county supervisors were effective \u201conly some of the time\u201d \u2014 or not at all.<\/p>\n

How to turn things around? Seven out of ten agreed the county government needed \u201cmajor reform.\u201d<\/p>\n

Those are the top-line findings from a new survey on local governance published this week by the Center for the Study of Los Angeles at Loyola Marymount University.<\/p>\n

The survey, paid for by the John Randolph Haynes and Dora Haynes Foundation, took the pulse of just over 1,000 registered voters and found most were feeling quite glum about the local state of affairs.<\/p>\n

\u201cVoters and residents are in a state of distrust and think that the government is not working,\u201d said Fernando Guerra<\/b>, the center\u2019s director.<\/p>\n

You\u2019re reading the L.A. on the Record newsletter <\/p>\n

But the survey was meant to show more than just a dejected electorate, Guerra said. He argued it made another point: Now is not the time for opponents to try and undo Measure G, a controversial measure that overhauled the county\u2019s form of government.<\/p>\n

\u201cThere are some people that are trying to relitigate Measure G, and I\u2019m talking at the level of political elite,\u201d said Guerra, who supported the overhaul. \u201cWhat these numbers are suggesting, and what I\u2019m suggesting, is if it were to be put up for an election again, it would pass again.\u201d<\/p>\n

It\u2019s been almost exactly a year since voters approved Measure G, bringing something akin to a wrecking ball to the county\u2019s governance structure and promising to replace it with something unprecedented in California: namely, nine supervisors instead of five and an elected county executive rather than an appointed one.<\/p>\n

The measure was always controversial, with criticism lobbed at the position of chief executive, who opponents said would now hold far too much power over a $45-billion budget and the well-being of the county\u2019s 10 million residents.<\/p>\n

The measure barely passed, with a little more than half of voters agreeing to give it a shot. But the ultimate bureaucratic flub is giving some opponents of the overhaul new ammo to bring it back to voters.<\/p>\n

Due to an error with how the county handles charter updates, voters inadvertently gave a 2028 expiration date to a different ballot measure that allocates funding for anti-incarceration efforts \u2014 known as Measure J \u2014 when they approved Measure G. (The head-scratching error is a wonky one \u2014 readers curious as to how it came about can find out here<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

Months after the error came to light, the county has still not said how it plans to fix the mistake. There are a few options, including putting either of the measures back on the ballot.<\/p>\n

The survey of voters was not an election poll, and respondents were not given opposing arguments. Most voters did not seem to know much about the impending county government overhaul and the survey did not ask about the bureaucratic screw-up, which could be seized upon in a campaign. About half didn\u2019t remember how they voted. <\/p>\n

It\u2019s not clear who exactly is pushing so hard for G\u2019s demise currently. While the overhaul had its vocal opponents \u2014 including two supervisors \u2014 the effort would be extremely expensive and some may not relish the idea of a campaign that may come with an acute sense of d\u00e9j\u00e0 vu.<\/p>\n

Some on the government reform task force who opposed Measure G said they didn\u2019t think it was in the cards \u2014 though those who opposed the measure said they didn\u2019t think it was such a bad idea.<\/p>\n

\u201cI have not heard that,\u201d said John Fasana<\/b>, a task force member who first noticed the error and voted against both Measure G and J. \u201cI think that\u2019s what they should do: if they\u2019re going to do one, I would say it should be G.\u201d<\/p>\n

Instead, the county appears to be leaning toward a ballot measure involving Measure J for 2026.<\/p>\n

On Nov. 3, Dawyn Harrison<\/b>, the county\u2019s top lawyer, laid out the possible options for the board to \u201creverse the error and honor the will of the voters.\u201d That memo<\/a> included language for various ways to enshrine Measure J through a ballot measure and make sure it doesn\u2019t go poof in a few years.<\/p>\n

Brian Kaneda<\/b>, who is part of the coalition that got Measure J passed, said the group believes the county has multiple options to fix the blunder. But putting Measure J back on the ballot, they warn, should be the last thing the county considers.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf evidence surfaces that a new ballot measure is legally required, we\u2019re ready,\u201d said Kaneda. \u201cBut we believe the county should rectify this internally, honoring the will of 2.1 million voters.\u201d<\/p>\n

State of play<\/p>\n

\u2014 RUFF WEEK: <\/b>One of the opponents<\/a> of L.A. City Controller Kenneth Mejia<\/b> accused the controller of misusing city resources by using images of his corgis and other graphics for both his office and his campaign. A campaign spokesperson suggested the opponent was \u201cjealous of our cute corgi graphics.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u2014 BIN BONANZA: <\/b>Los Angeles has left dozens of green bins<\/a> on city blocks, so residents can dump their food waste and comply with a state composting law. Some residents say it\u2019s overkill. <\/p>\n

\u2014 \u2018SMEAR\u2019 STANCE: <\/b>Newly appointed Fire Chief Jaime Moore<\/b> says the media<\/a> is trying to \u201csmear\u201d firefighters. The accusations appear to be in reference to a Times report that a battalion chief ordered firefighters to leave the burn area of the Jan. 1 Lachman fire, which would reignite into the deadly Palisades fire.<\/p>\n

\u2014 FIRE FUND<\/b>: The city\u2019s firefighter union plans to propose a ballot measure<\/a> that would increase the sales tax for Angelenos by half a cent in perpetuity, raising hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue annually for the department to build dozens of new stations, add rigs and increase the size of the department by more than 1,000 by 2050. \u201cThis is the most important thing for the LAFD really ever,\u201d said Doug Coates<\/b>, the acting president of UFLAC.<\/p>\n

\u2014 FRAUD PROBE<\/b>: Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman<\/b> said his office will investigate<\/a> claims that plaintiffs made up stories of sexual abuse in order to sue L.A. County. The announcement follows Times investigations<\/a> that found nine people who said they were paid by recruiters to join the litigation.<\/p>\n

\u2014 RESERVOIR QUESTIONS: <\/b>State officials determined that even if the Santa Ynez Reservoir had been full during the Palisades fire, the water system still would have been overwhelmed<\/a> and quickly lost pressure. Officials concluded the water supply in Southern California was \u201crobust\u201d at the time of the fire and that the water system isn\u2019t designed to handle such large, intense wildfires.<\/p>\n

QUICK HITS<\/p>\n