Tired of City Hall scandals?
This is the moment to reform how Los Angeles is governed
Los Angeles City Hall has lurched from scandal to scandal in recent years. If there’s any good news to come from this bad situation, it may be that there’s finally serious momentum to reform city government.
In the last couple of years, three councilmembers — Jose Huizar, Mitch Englander and Mark RidleyThomas — have been indicted in corruption investigations. The former general manager of the Department of Water and Power pleaded guilty to accepting bribes. Mayor Eric Garcetti’s bodyguard sued the city, alleging that he was sexually harassed by Garcetti’s top aide and that the mayor did not intervene. And last week The Times revealed a secret audio recording that captured three councilmembers — one of whom was council president — and the county’s top labor official making deplorable and racially divisive comments about their colleagues and constituents, while plotting how to redraw council district lines to their benefit.
This most recent scandal may have been the final straw, because there’s suddenly strong support inside City Hall to increase transparency, expand representation and limit corruption. It’s about time.
The most effective proposals would strip elected officials of the ability to draw their own districts, enlarge the 15-member City Council and eliminate councilmembers’ direct power over land-use decisions in their districts to reduce pay-to-play corruption.
These are reforms that good-government advocates — including The Times editorial board — have been championing for years, but they’ve been largely ignored or rejected in City Hall. Of course. Why would elected officials willingly give up power? That power helps them get reelected and helps them elect their allies so they can control the agenda. This isn’t always nefarious — it’s how groups build political strength and coalitions to change policy.
But what we’ve seen in the corruption indictments and heard on the leaked audio recording represent the poisonous side of politics. The pursuit of individual power for its own sake, not for the betterment of communities. The abuse of the office for greed and self-interest. That toxicity is enabled, and even encouraged, by Los Angeles’ outdated laws and governance structures.
Take, for example, the city’s redistricting process. Every 10 years, the city draws new council district maps to reflect the updated federal census data. The goal is to create an elected body that better represents constituents. The city’s redistricting commission is purported to be an independent citizens’ panel. But it isn’t independent at all; elected officials select commissioners, who are typically political allies. The last two redistricting commissions in 2011 and 2021 have been rife with meddling and stringpulling by elected officials. City councilmembers have the final vote on maps and can redraw lines, again, to their own advantage.
The leaked recording at the center of the current City Hall scandal offers a window into the toxic nature of this process. Council President Nury Martinez, Councilmembers Gil Cedillo and Kevin de León and Los Angeles County Federation of Labor President Ron Herrera met in October 2021 to discuss how they could manipulate the district borders to help themselves, hurt their foes and, in effect, dilute the strength of Black voters, renters and other communities. The revelation has undermined confidence in the new maps and prompted a state Department of Justice investigation.
It doesn’t have to be this way. California, Los Angeles County and cities such as San Diego, Long Beach and Sacramento have truly independent redistricting commissions that draw the lines without political interference. It’s a transparent process done by commissioners without personal advantage, so people can have faith in the outcome.
Putting a measure on the 2024 ballot to create an independent redistricting commission should be a top priority, but not the only one.
Redistricting reform should be paired with a measure to enlarge the City Council. Too much power is concentrated in too few hands, and there are not enough elected officials to represent the ethnic, religious and socioeconomic diversity of 4 million people.
In fact, the leaked recording inadvertently makes the case for a larger council. The strategy session was ostensibly an attempt to address Latino underrepresentation on the council — Latino residents make up roughly half of L.A.’s population, but less than a third of the council’s 15 districts have a Latino councilmember. Because the council is so small, there is a zero-sum mentality when council districts are divvied up.
Another crucial change is to reduce a councilmember’s power over land-use decisions in their districts. The indictment of former Councilman Huizar for allegedly using his position to rake in $1.5 million in cash and other benefits from real estate developers looking to build in L.A. has provided an opportunity for examination and change. His corruption trial is expected to begin in February in federal court.
The indictment outlined how the city’s development approval process concentrates power in the council offices. City Council districts are like fiefdoms, over which councilmembers have discretion to make real estate development decisions, including whether a project gets an exemption from zoning and land-use rules, or whether it should be granted a tax break. Not only does this power invite corruption, it also makes it harder and more expensive to build muchneeded housing.
The city needs rules for development that spell out clearly what can be built where. If a project meets the criteria, a councilmember should not have the power to veto it. City leaders have it within their authority now to change some of the development rules. Other reforms will require going to the ballot.
It’s easy to dismiss a scandal as an isolated incident. One bad apple. But Los Angeles now has had half a dozen councilmembers who have fundamentally undermined public trust in local government.
Over the next few weeks, The Times editorial board will delve deeper into these proposed reforms — and others — and how to make them happen. We’ll ask elected leaders and candidates for office to commit to supporting independent redistricting, expanding the City Council and removing councilmembers’ discretion over land-use decisions.
This is a rare moment when meaningful change is possible. Let’s not miss the opportunity.