The vision thing

When the people of Los Angeles elected Ron Galperin as city controller in 2013, they were looking for an independent-minded watchdog who would use the power and bully pulpit of the office to delve into the city’s troubled finances, sound the alarm on wasteful or inappropriate spending and hold his fellow public officials accountable for confronting the big, sweeping fiscal issues that Los Angeles faces in the years ahead. ¶ So far, what they’ve gotten is a nice guy with a narrow vision and a tendency to steer clear of the subjects most critical to L.A.’s future.

Galperin’s heart is no doubt in the right place, and he’s had a couple of notable victories, including a courageous and muchpublicized showdown with one of the most powerful union leaders in Los Angeles. He’s also increased transparency and made it easier for Angelenos to understand how their tax dollars are being spent. But for the most part, he’s done less than we believe he is capable of, sticking mostly to the bare essentials of the job during his first two years in office.

During the campaign, Galperin pitched himself as an outsider who could deliver a fresh perspective on City Hall’s finances. It wasn’t a tough sell considering that his opponent was longtime councilman and inveterate insider Dennis Zine. Galperin had shown he had the interest and ability to scrutinize city budgets through his work as chairman of the City Council-appointed Ad Hoc Commission on Revenue Efficiency. The commission produced nine reports over a year and half and identified $100 million that the city could either make or save through numerous small changes.

That was promising, but as controller of a big, complicated, troubled city like Los Angeles, it is not enough to go hunting for a few million dollars here and a few million dollars there.

Galperin’s most recent audit, for example, found that the city had not collected $1.8 million from outside organizations for the cost of overtime by city employees working special events. That’s an infinitesimal drop in the bucket when you consider that the annual city budget is $8.6 billion. And it followed an audit that found a “staggering” use of overtime in the Department of Transportation’s Paint and Sign section — but $3.3 million of overtime is hardly more than pocket change, especially since the audit didn’t make the case that the OT was undeserved or the system was being misused.

The audits Galperin has underway — looking into city warehousing practices, developer fees and funds sent from other governmental agencies, among others — don’t indicate he has any intention of enlarging his vision in the near future. So far, Galperin has completed 18 audits — far fewer than his predecessors. And while it’s true that not all audits can be expected to reveal gross misdeeds (and that Galperin took over an office with a skeleton crew of seven auditors and has taken a while to staff up), the fact is that only a few of his reports have landed with much of an impact.

But what’s been most disappointing about the controller’s term so far is his absence on important public debates. Galperin won a long-shot campaign in part because voters liked his frank assessments. The public hasn’t seen much of Galperin and his straight talk since election day. Where was he during the minimum wage debate? On homelessness or infrastructure investment?

Galperin is not the first controller to focus on micro-savings, department by department. That’s a basic responsibility of his job as L.A.’s “auditor and chief accounting officer.” But a good controller ought to — and is expected to under the City Charter — do more. The controller is not merely a glorified accountant or check-signer-inchief, like the state controller; he or she has the authority to propose far-reaching revamps of policies and processes. In a government without political parties, the controller ought to be the loyal opposition, a public advocate of sorts. Uncovering waste and fraud is part of the job, but the controller also has a responsibility to outline for voters and policymakers a larger narrative of what is going wrong or how things could be better.

This is a city in which pension and retirement benefits consume 20% of general fund spending (nearly four times more than in 2002). So shouldn’t Galperin be speaking out loudly and emphatically about how that number can be reduced? If abuse of overtime and disability systems is costing hundreds of millions of dollars every year, then shouldn’t he fight for legal changes and rule changes to address that, even beyond the Paint and Sign section? The city continues to face a fundamental, ongoing imbalance of revenues and spending. Why isn’t the controller beating on the City Council and the mayor to address the problem — and suggesting ways to do so?

Given that roughly 80% of L.A.’s tax dollars are spent on salaries and benefits, why wouldn’t the controller analyze labor contracts, like the one recently negotiated with the police, helping explain which of its provisions make sense and whether money is being wasted?

Galperin has had one highly visible success since taking office, although it was more symbolic than substantive. After The Times reported that two nonprofit organizations set up under an agreement between the Department of Water and Power and the utility’s union had spent $40 million in ratepayer revenue over 10 years with no clear results, Galperin jumped right in with an audit. That meant taking on the powerful head of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 18, Brian D’Arcy, issuing subpoenas to compel him to explain where the money went. Though he was fought every step of the way, Galperin succeeded in getting the books opened, an important victory for the principle that the people of Los Angeles have the right to know how their public dollars are spent.

That battle took courage, something he doesn’t always get full credit for because of his tendency to be a get-along guy with an aversion to confrontation. We’d like to see more such boldness.

Galperin’s biggest achievement in office so far has been his open data project, ControlPanel LA. That may sound mundane, but the rapidity with which he was able to compile and post smartly organized data on salaries, spending and the budget exploded the usual trope about painfully slow bureaucracies. He gets extra credit for presenting this data in a graphically accessible and easy-to-digest way, such as the ability for anyone to see real-time spending across any city department. We’re also glad he carved out an open data corner just to highlight DWP spending, at UtilityPanelLA.

To raise his grade, Galperin needs to think bigger. He needs to add his voice to the public debates over the city’s future and be the public watchdog when it comes to spending. And if city departments are ignoring his recommendations and continuing to waste taxpayer money, it’s his duty to come out publicly and noisily to call the public’s attention to it. Want to weigh in? Tweet us your experiences, opinions or expectations of Galperin, City Atty. Mike Feuer, City Council President Herb Wesson or Mayor Eric Garcetti @latimesopinion #gradeyourgov or find us on Facebook.