County Supervisor Yaroslavsky is still on the fence over whether to run for L.A. mayor. But he’s keeping plenty busy with everything from health care reform to pro football to the Democratic National Convention.
He’s been called the Hamlet of L.A. politics for his refusal to say whether he’ll run for L.A. mayor next spring. But Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky arguably the best-known county public official seems to be reveling in his current post, which he calls “one of the best public policy jobs in America.”
First elected to the board in 1994 after nearly 20 years on the L.A. City Council representing the Westside, the 51-year-old Yaroslavsky has been very busy of late, playing key roles in a number of critical issues.
He was one of the lead negotiators in the county’s bid to avert fiscal disaster by getting a $1.2 billion federal waiver of Medicare reimbursement rules. He also was a strong voice against giving $600,000 in county funds to Democratic National Convention organizers.
His attempt earlier this month to put a measure on the November ballot to create the post of county executive which many saw as being tailor made for him failed.
Yaroslavsky’s public role extends beyond the County Hall of Administration. He sits on the board of directors of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, where two years ago he led a charge to stop spending money to build more subways. He just became president of the Los Angeles Coliseum Commission, which failed last year to bring a professional football team to L.A., and he was an official observer of the recent Mexican elections.
Question: To run or not to run what’s your decision? Are you going to enter the L.A. mayor’s race or not?
Answer: I have not ruled it out. I have not actively pursued it at this point. I have no firm timeline (for making a decision), but obviously, the election is approaching. Over the last several weeks and months, I’ve been primarily focused on the county’s various crises, including negotiating the health care waiver. I haven’t had the luxury of looking too far ahead.
Q: Hmm, still essentially the same answer you’ve been giving for more than a year now. You must be getting tired of being asked that question?
A: Yes and no. On the one hand, it’s repetitive. On the other hand, if people stop asking, I guess it means I’m disappearing from (people’s) radar screens. I understand why there is a lot of interest among political observers and among the other candidates. But the general public hasn’t even begun to focus on the presidential election yet, let alone next year’s mayoral race.
Q: People have said you are reluctant to run because you are “comfortable” in your current position as a county supervisor. What is your reaction to that?
A: I must admit that’s the first time I’ve ever heard the word “comfortable” associated with me. Even when I’m in a place for a long time, my life has been focused on upsetting the status quo. I challenge the way things are done.
Having said that, being a county supervisor is one of the great public policy jobs in America. Nowhere else do you get to deal with the range of public policy issues that I see here every day from taking care of the uninsured to getting a reliable and cost-effective mass transit system up and running.
Q: You played a key role in negotiating the new $1.2 billion, five-year extension of the county’s Medicare waiver. Yet federal officials have warned they will not extend that waiver again. How can the county solve its health care crisis?
A: This county’s biggest challenge will be to re-engineer and revolutionize its health care department. We have a $500 million structural deficit. We need to have people on board who are committed to re-engineering the department, which is still top-heavy, resembling more of a 1950s style of government. We missed an opportunity over the last five years to do this restructuring. We had some change, but not enough. The board (of supervisors) was simply not determined to do more. The supervisors are too parochial, looking out for their own districts and not concerned for the county as a whole. That’s one reason I support a county executive, who will advocate for the whole county.
Q: Are you disappointed that the state budget just signed by Gov. Davis didn’t include more funds for counties?
A: There is no question that it’s frustrating. Here we are trying to fill a $500 million structural deficit in our health department. And we are still reeling from the billions the state took away in the early 1990s to balance its own budget. We’re never going to see that money again; once a government agency takes funds, it almost never gives it back.
It is troubling, especially this year when there was a $13 billion surplus in Sacramento, that we have not seen more investment in human infrastructure in our children, in our health care and in other areas.
Q: The Board of Supervisors just put on the ballot a measure to expand the panel from five to nine members. You voted against that measure. Why?
A: I’m very much against expanding the board. You are taking a system run by five executives and that’s what the board is, an administrative body and turning it into a nine-headed monster. It would become just like the old Soviet Politburo. For the first time in my life, I really feel for (former Soviet premier Leonid) Brezhnev. Every decision must be vetted now by all five board members. It took us three years to decide how to rebuild County-USC (Medical Center); imagine how much longer it would have taken to get consensus with nine board members. It would be a disaster for the taxpayers.
Q: The board recently approved allocating $1 million in county funds to the Sheriff’s Department for security related to the Democratic National Convention, while rejecting an additional $600,000 for the Los Angeles Convention and Visitors Bureau to charter additional buses for convention attendees. Where did you stand on that vote?
A: I reluctantly supported the $1 million for the sheriff. I think we’re going to end up spending more than that. From everything I have heard so far, the money we allocated may prove to be a good insurance policy that saves us more money down the line. I’m talking about delegate protection and protection for the delegate buses, which as I understand it, are basically sitting ducks.
But the $600,000 for the LACVB was basically a laundering operation for the convention planners. We had no way of knowing exactly what that was going to be spent on.
Q: This whole request was a surprise, wasn’t it?
A: It is a little bit galling that the county has been asked to bail out the city, which is overextended and allegedly doesn’t have the resources for the law enforcement needs of this convention, as the Mayor promised when he got the convention for the city. I simply fail to understand how L.A. could fund the Olympics 16 years ago and manage to create a huge surplus and now it can’t find a way to raise $35 million with all the wealth that’s been created in this region.
Q: You’ve just assumed the presidency of the Coliseum Commission. Will L.A. ever get an NFL team?
A: I must admit that the odds of L.A. getting a football team in the immediate future are slim. In the long haul, the National Football League has to deal with the L.A. media market. While football TV ratings are up nationwide, they were down 13 percent in L.A. last year. And you have a whole generation of youth in L.A. who are growing up without football. (NFL officials) simply have got to realize that the public is not about to pay for a franchise here. But there’s more to the Coliseum than professional football.
Q: Like what?
A: I would really like to see us land a Mexican Soccer League franchise team here at the Coliseum. This area can certainly support such a team; there are more Mexicans in Los Angeles County than in almost any Mexican city.
