Jon Regardie is a veteran Los Angeles journalist who has contributed to dozens of local and national publications, including L.A. Downtown News, where he served as editor, and Los Angeles Magazine, Blueprint, Westside Current and The Eastsider.
Almost all of the reforms Measure EE would make to Los Angeles city government read like common-sense improvements. Give the Los Angeles Police Department’s inspector general and the Fire Department’s independent assessor more authority? Sounds wise. Boost penalties for campaign finance violations? Heck yeah, given the role of money in elections.
But buried among those anodyne changes in Measure EE on the Nov. 3 ballot is one that would completely alter how the City Council has conducted the public’s business in Los Angeles for more than a century. It would require the members to meet at least weekly rather than the currently mandated three days per week. The council president could call members to session more often, but that would be optional.
Smart money vs. dark money: Support Golden State’s reporting and analysis on all 14 propositions on the Nov. 3 ballot by making a tax-deductible gift. It’s the smartest donation you can make this election cycle.
Why is a proposed seismic change to how local government operates obfuscated by good-governance proposals? If replacing a system in effect for 101 years that has never generated widespread public opposition is on the table, then shouldn’t this be its own ballot item, argued on its merits alone? Or did certain power players worry that voters might not bite?
I’m not the only one raising the issue. Monica Rodriguez, who for eight years has represented District 7 on the council, told me she finds the idea of inserting a council meeting change into a batch of ethics reforms “offensive.” She points out that the 70-word ballot item does not actually say, for example, how inspector general authority might be broadened, or how much penalties for campaign finance violations would be increased. (Details are provided in the city’s 98-page voter information pamphlet, if anyone bothers to read it.)
“It was the most general, kind of throwaway language that to me does absolutely nothing to provide Angelenos greater transparency for better local government,” said Rodriguez, who is listed as a formal opponent of Measure EE.
So who wants this? It is worth noting that the idea did not spring from the Los Angeles Charter Reform Commission, which the council created in June 2024 to examine changes to the city charter, the document that functions as L.A.’s constitution. The 13-member panel held more than 50 public meetings and recommended some reforms appearing on the ballot, such as a proposal to double parks funding (Measure PRK). It also suggested other ideas that the council punted on, including expanding the council from 15 to 25 members.
Golden State staff
Instead, the idea is something councilmembers have been kicking around for a while. They considered it in 2024 but backed off amid limited support. It returned this summer, with the council voting on June 30 to place it on the ballot. Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson and Councilmembers Katy Yaroslavsky, Tim McOsker and Eunisses Hernandez argue for it in the information pamphlet.
When I asked Yaroslavsky why all these changes were lumped into Measure EE at a September luncheon hosted by the Los Angeles Current Affairs forum, she said she wasn’t sure “why it was grouped that way” and that she was not behind that decision.
As for having fewer meetings, she cited the gadflies who regularly use racist or sexist language with elected officials during public comments. She also said that sometimes three meetings seems unnecessary, and she referenced the number of council committees that members sit on, along with commitments such as serving on Metro or other outside boards.
“It means that we don’t have a lot of time for our districts, because we have butts in seats three times a week,” Yaroslavsky said.
Proponents state in the voter information pamphlet that the schedule makes the city an “outlier.” They assert that one weekly meeting, like the County Board of Supervisors holds each Tuesday, would make “public participation in the process more predictable and certain.”
Jon Healey
L.A.’s schedule is undoubtedly unique, and those of other cities are all over the place, from a monthly session in Chicago to the Houston City Council gathering every Tuesday afternoon and Wednesday morning. But Rodriguez believes L.A. needs its schedule in part because the council’s workload and oversight role demand it. She also thinks having multiple sessions heightens transparency and accessibility.
And that weekly L.A. County supervisors’ meeting? It’s not exactly the best model of efficiency: Sessions can last longer than six hours, and people who come to watch or speak on an item can lose an entire day waiting for it to come up.
The concern about profane gadflies is understandable — their language is often abhorrent — but it’s simply part of the job. Plus, Harris-Dawson is seeking to address this through legally enforceable rule changes.
As for all those obligations that suck time? The council currently has 15 standing committees that meet every other week and six ad hoc committees. Appointments to those bodies is the purview of the council president, who can reduce a member’s onerous slate. Rodriguez says it’s a choice to sit on outside panels and suggests officeholders determine whether they have the “bandwidth” for it.
Paul Thornton
There are other important questions: Would fewer meetings actually make local government function more efficiently, as Measure EE’s proponents say? And would this bring councilmembers closer to constituents in their largest-in-the-nation districts? Certainly, one could see a single weekly meeting allowing members to spend more time in their communities.
But this is also about serving a city of almost 4 million people, not just individual districts with 265,000 residents. And anyone who understands City Hall knows that community satisfaction usually depends on how reliably a councilmember’s staff handles complaints and returns phone calls about abandoned vehicles, homeless encampments, speed bumps and other quality-of-life issues. This tends to trump personal gladhanding at community events.
Besides, a councilmember’s roughly $250,000-a-year gig is not a 9-to-5 job, and an elected official’s ability to deliver constituent services often matters more to voters than seeing the pol’s smiling mug in person. Having fewer City Council meetings won’t change that.
What do you think? Golden State is a public forum. Send your responses for possible publication to forum@golden-state.org.
