Time to Tear Down City’s Commission System

#13 COMMISSION REFORM

L.A.’s commission-style system of government is antiquated and broken. Originally designed as a way to allow citizen input in government, the 54 boards and commissions have become a new kind of political patronage system.

This has been most evident in recent “pay-to-play” inquiries involving whether commissioners influence staff decisions and award contracts to entities that have contributed to the mayor or his causes.

It’s time to consider eliminating or consolidating the city’s 54 boards and commissions and take steps to de-politicize them. Not only would this save the city money at a time of growing deficits, it would prune a shadowy layer of government that too often goes unnoticed.

The Civil Service Commission and the Employee Relations Commission, for example, could easily be consolidated into one commission overseeing the needs of city employees, while the Community Forest Advisory Committee might be subsumed under the Environmental Affairs Commission.

But reducing the number of boards and commissions won’t get rid of political patronage. For that, systemic changes must be made, preferably in an amendment to the City Charter that goes to the voters.

First, the authority to appoint commissioners should be split between the mayor and the City Council. Many state commissions are set up this way, with appointments made by both the governor and legislative leaders.

Second, commissioners should not serve on more than two city commissions. This would eliminate the practice of rotating commissioners.

Third, the City Council should be given the authority to intervene in a mayoral decision involving removal of a commissioner. That power was taken away during charter reform; the result is that the mayor has unchecked power over the commissioners he appoints.

Fourth, disclosure rules for commissioners should be more stringent. Emphasis should be on prior political contributions and fundraising activities. (Current law only requires disclosure of individual political contributions, not fundraising.)

Finally, commissioners should be given only advisory powers when it comes to awarding contracts. The prospect of political appointees awarding millions of dollars in contracts is a recipe for scandal. Those decisions ought to be left to elected officials who are directly accountable to the people.

L.A.’s system of citizen commissions arose out of Progressive Era reforms and was viewed as another check on the power of the mayor and the council. For a while, the system had powerful commissioners espousing an independent voice. But former Mayor Tom Bradley reined in the power of the commissioners, requiring them, for example, to sign undated letters of resignation upon their appointment. From that point on, commissioners became subject to the whims of the mayor.

In 1991-92, as part of the reforms that brought the City Ethics Commission into being, more public disclosure was sought for commissioners to reduce the appearance of conflict of interest. But then-Commissioner Doug Ring (developer and husband of current City Councilwoman Cindy Miscikowski) and other commissioners successfully brought a court injunction to stop the practice, claiming that disclosure of financial activities not directly related to the commissions’ jurisdiction was a violation of constitutional rights.

As part of the charter reform effort in the late 1990s, then Mayor Richard Riordan successfully eliminated the right of the council to intervene on behalf of a commissioner removed by the mayor. Riordan maintained that this would make commissioners more accountable to the mayor.

This year, Hahn issued an executive order banning commissioners from engaging in fundraising activities for city candidates or city-related ballot measures. But the order did not touch on fundraising for candidates for non-city offices, and it does not apply to fundraising activities prior to assuming the post.

Opposition to many of these measures could be expected from the mayor, the commissioners themselves and any other defenders of the status quo. The key is to move aggressively in next few months as the “pay-to-play” investigations continue to dominate local headlines.

A charter amendment can be placed on the ballot either in March or June of 2005. Unlike other agenda proposals, the change won’t require huge sums of money; the only funds necessary would be for a charter reform ballot measure campaign. However, it will require enough political will to overcome an entrenched opposition. The Ethics Commission and neighborhood councils could take the lead role here.

The reform package offers a way to de-politicize city boards and commissions. These reforms would increase transparency and accountability, along with reducing the temptation to reward political allies and snub enemies.

COMMISSION REFORM

Proposal: Reduce the number of boards and commissions in Los Angeles city government; enact political reforms to check power of commissioners

Obstacles: Opposition from mayor, commissioners and other upholders

of the status quo

Cost: Minimal, chiefly from whatever procedures are set up to craft and implement report and an election campaign, if necessary; modest savings from reduced number of commissions would be realized

Time Frame: Implement reduction in commission and boards starting on July 1, 2005; other changes may have to wait another year or more