Comments
NICK'S VIEW - Last February, the Charter Reform Commission recommended expanding the Los Angeles City Council from 15 to 25 seats. The council is now considering whether to put this proposal on the November ballot.
The council has consisted of fifteen members since 1925, even though the city population has grown sixfold. Supporters argue that increasing the number of members would improve constituent ratios; currently, each member represents about 265,000 residents. Expanding to twenty-five members would reduce this to roughly 160,000, like other large cities.
Critics claim that a bigger council could cause disorder, slow legislation, and increase costs for salaries, staff, and offices—money that would be better spent on direct services such as homelessness programs, public safety or infrastructure.
The expansion debate is complex. Most council members back reform but have concerns about how it will be implemented. Numerous objections have been raised that may prevent the measure from appearing on the November ballot.
Monica Rodriguez, District 7, has questioned whether expanding the council would improve services and expressed concern that the cost of ten additional council offices would be in the tens of millions annually. John Lee, District 12, is cautious about expanding government, calling for independent redistricting over adding more council seats. Bob Blumenfield, District 3, backs reform but raises concerns about locating space for new offices and staffing them cost-effectively amid a deficit. Curren Price, District 9, urges the council to focus on ethics and lobbying regulations before making any significant structural changes.
Certainly, the power-dilution factor, in other words the self-limiting element, will play a key role in the voting process. At the current structure, each member’s vote equates to 6.7 percent of the entire council. If the council members are twenty-five, that number would become 4 percent.
Discretionary funds for council members would be limited. With a bigger, more varied council, "Councilmanic Privilege," where members defer to each other's land-use decisions, would also be tougher to uphold.
The "Reform Bloc," led by Nithya Raman, Eunisses Hernandez, and Hugo Soto-Martinez, supports expansion to empower marginalized groups and decentralize power.
Currently, eight votes are needed for decisions. A simple majority of eight is required to pass resolutions or propose Charter Amendments for the ballot, with the City Attorney drafting language if approved. A quorum, also eight members, is necessary to hold any vote. If enough members are absent or walk out, breaking quorum, voting cannot proceed.
While this eight-vote bar sounds low, it is very tricky. And there are many reasons why it is so.
First, there is the proverbial “pie.” It is a finite pie that is currently divided into fifteen ways. If you add ten more members, the city suddenly does not get more money. Each member’s slice of the discretionary funding and administrative support will get smaller. No one likes to have their "allowance" cut.
Then, of course, by expanding the council it requires redrawing every single district map. Redistricting poses a re-election risk for incumbents, who may lose supportive neighborhoods and gain unfamiliar ones. Smaller districts also make it easier and less expensive for challengers to run, since it is simpler to reach 100,000 voters than 265,000.
Often it is argued that a smaller group is more effective. While that is sometimes true, it is also a fact that a smaller group is easier to control. In a 25-member council, politics are more unpredictable and divided. The possibility of an unrestrained and frenzied council is possible.
Council members are also likely to turn away from expansion because after years of building a power base, a change may not appear to be a progressive move but a downgrading.
Small or big, residents will always have a tough time meeting with their council members. This, indeed, is never a problem for lobbyists, special interests and union bosses.
Large districts and concentrated power tend to raise corruption risks. Expanding districts can weaken individual influence and complicate private deals. Increasing transparency through public deliberations can help mitigate these risks.
Expansion alone will not resolve homelessness or crumbling infrastructure. Solutions need executive reform, better coordination, accountability, and transparent data. Better governance will not surface from more members on the city council, that it will result in significant costs, bureaucracy, reduced trust, increased gridlock, and inefficiency.
My thinking is that a broken and chaotic entity will emerge if the council members increase to twenty-five. The internal struggle for power, leadership and recognition will make the council an endless war zone. Too many contesting leaders will have zero direction. And if everyone is in charge, no one is.
(Nick Patsaouras is an electrical engineer, civic leader, and a longtime public advocate. He ran for Mayor in 1993 with a focus on rebuilding L.A. through transportation after the 1992 civil unrest. He has served on major public boards, including the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, Metro, and the Board of Zoning Appeals, helping guide infrastructure and planning policy in Los Angeles. He is the author of the book "The Making of Modern Los Angeles.")
