After a tense debate, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors moved forward with a plan to give the public an advance look — of about seven days — at policy motions coming before the board for a vote.
The incremental step was approved by the Board of Supervisors by a 4-1 vote on Tuesday, Oct. 22, 2024. First District Supervisor Hilda Solis voted against the motion.
A report will come back to the board in 45 days about opening up existing “policy cluster meetings” to include how the board can incorporate a review of proposed board motions at those pre-meetings. Then the board can vote to approve or reject the operational changes.
A date for implementing the changes set for Jan. 1, 2025 was removed from the motion.
If the new policy is implemented, it would represent a substantial change in how the board operates — by giving the public, as well as residents and organizations that may be affected — an advance chance to comment and suggest changes on motions coming to a vote at the Tuesday board meetings.
Normally, agendas with board motions are released on Friday, leaving three days for review.
Often, organizations including cities are not open over the weekend, so they often have late Friday and Monday to put together a response. The proposed policy change would stretch that time to about a week.
“Policy cluster meetings are open to the public. The motion today expands the use of this existing cluster space to include a review and discussion of motions before they go on the board agenda for a vote,” said Second District Supervisor Holly Mitchell, who authored the motion along with Fifth District Supervisor Kathryn Barger.
Supervisors Mitchell and Barger’s joint motion calls for a report that would include for the first time a requirement for actual board motions to be presented at “topical cluster” meetings.
These are meetings led by department heads and supervisor aides arranged by topics — or clusters — such as public health, public safety, homelessness, parks and libraries.
The topical cluster meetings are less known and less formal advance public meetings that currently air departmental “letters” — not board motions — for input.
The “letters” are from department directors, usually providing data on how they would institute a new policy from a referenced motion that is up for a vote.
“This is an important step forward that will make our supervisors’ legislative powers more inclusive and transparent to the public,” said Barger in a prepared response. “Authentic and meaningful public input simply cannot be delivered when the public is limited to one minute of testimony and dozens of motions are crammed into each Board meeting.”
The proposed sneak preview aims to draw out criticism, support, or changes to the motions, which are the meat and potatoes of every Board of Supervisors meeting.
“We believe in transparent, accountable government. This measure aligns with that vision,” said Alysia Rivers, who represents BizFed, a large business advocacy group. “This is the only way to allow for early input from stakeholders.”
Several union leaders also expressed support for the idea.
Yvonne Wheeler, president of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, said it is difficult to properly respond to a motion only three days before it’s on the board’s agenda on Tuesdays.
“By establishing this structure for public input, it will ensure stakeholders will have time to assess the impact on public policy,” Wheeler told the board.
Solis said she didn’t like the possibility of having her motion changed when she was not at the cluster meeting.
She preferred to postpone the report, and any possible action, until after Nov. 5, when county governance reform is voted on by the public. Measure G on the Nov. 5 ballot would establish a Government Reform Task Force, as well as increase the numbers of supervisors from five to nine.
“I don’t think it is a direction I feel comfortable with. I want to wait until after the election to see what happens with our governance model,” Solis said.
Third District Supervisor Lindsey Horvath was also very leery of the Mitchell-Barger motion. She also said many reforms that are included in Measure G will improve the workings and transparency of the board. Horvath led the way for Measure G. Mitchell and Barger both voted not to place it on the ballot, a meaningful split in the usually unanimous board.
“I am skeptical about the motivations of this (Mitchell-Barger motion). I’m open to the spirit of collaboration,” she concluded, before voting “yes” to get a report back on the idea and how it might work.
Related Articles
LA County supervisors will use gender-inclusive language in drafting its codes
LA County Supervisors will consider creating more sunshine aimed at their own motions
Officials asks cancer surveillance program to probe cases near Chiquita Canyon landfill
Activists demand closure of LA County Men’s Central Jail, want treatment beds, not jail cells
Will LA County abandon Hall of Admin? Supervisors push to buy skyscraper for headquarters
Related links
LA County Supervisors will consider creating more sunshine aimed at their own motions
LA County OKs supplemental spending; budget rises to $49.2 billion
Election 2024: LA County’s Measure G would add 4 supervisors, CEO and ethics commission
LA County supervisors back a ballot measure to add 4 seats, elect a county CEO
Can an Asian district be created if Board of Supervisors is expanded?