Government reform remains a hot topic at L.A. City Hall — 10 months after the release of an audio recording that featured city council members making racist remarks and scheming to draw district boundaries to maintain their political power.
That scandal — along with recent indictments and prosecutions of public officials — has created momentum for change in how the nation’s second largest city is governed.
One of the leading ideas is to increase the size of the council to make it more responsive to the people of L.A.
At a meeting of the council’s government reform committee Thursday, a coalition of groups argued the council should increase to somewhere in the range of 23 to 31. There have been 15 members since 1925.
“We were able to do district modeling and look at line mapping of various council sizes and came up with the range,” said Jeremy Payne of Catalyst California, one of the members of the Our LA coalition. He said they did the mapping after conducting community meetings to find out what people’s priorities were.
Twenty-three districts, which would have council members representing around 172,000 people each, was “the floor” to giving people of color more power, Payne said. Right now, council members represent about 260,000 people each.
There could be one district that was 41% Asian American and one that was 45% Black, according to their modeling, Payne said. That could create “a shift in political power for communities that never had power before.”
Right now, there are two Asian American members of the council and three Black members, but none was elected from districts with such a high plurality of voters of their own racial or ethnic background.
Our L.A. argued against expanding the council beyond 31 because certain neighborhoods of common interest would need to be divided, including Koreatown. Increasing the size of the council to 31 would mean each council member would represent about 128,000 people.
City council members in Chicago and New York represent about 160,000 people each.
A group of researchers also addressed the council committee and suggested the council increase in size to 25. But four of the new seats would be “at-large” — meaning candidates would run citywide instead of in an individual district.
“The purpose of that was to have an additional cohort of members of the council who had a citywide constituency and therefore were interested in advancing the interests of everyone in the city,” said Gary Segura, a professor of public policy at UCLA
Critics of the council say one of the problems at City Hall right now is that each council member runs their district like their own fiefdom - and other council members defer to them on big developments and other issues in their district, whether or not it's good for the city.
Having at-large members could “change that dynamic,” said Sara Sadhwani, assistant professor of politics at Pomona College.
Several committee members raised objections. Council president Paul Krekorian, who chairs the committee, said at-large council members would have to raise inordinate amounts of money to run citywide. He noted that could disadvantage people of color.
One professor pointed out that all three of LA’s top elected officials — who all ran citywide — are people of color: Mayor Karen Bass, City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto and City Controller Kenneth Mejia.
The committee is also considering proposals to create an independent redistricting commission similar to one established more than a decade ago by the state. There seemed little disagreement over the need for such an independent panel, given the discussion on the audio recordings centered around carving up political districts so that those in the meeting could maintain their power.
Our LA argued unauthorized immigrants should be allowed to sit on such a panel, given that hundreds of thousands live in the city.
Our L.A. and the academicians emphasized that they may refine their proposals before the full council takes up the issue of reform, which is expected in September. Any change in the size of the council and the creation of an independent redistricting commission would require a change in the charter and therefore a citywide vote.
Russia Chavis Cardenas said she would be closely watching the city council as reform winds its way through City Hall. She said while it appears everyone agrees there is a need for an independent panel that draws political boundaries, there is room for political mischief.
“I think one thing that we have to be mindful of is whether the council would try to sneak in any type of incumbency protections,” she said.
Cardenas remained hopeful charter reform would get on the March or November ballot.
“I think the political will is there,” she said. “The time is now."
