The Los Angeles City Council is expected to vote Wednesday on a package of proposed City Charter amendments aimed at improving local governance, though crucial propositions may be left on the table as some council members say they need more time to study their impacts.
The full council will consider recommendations made by the five-member Rules, Elections and Intergovernmental Relations Committee, led by Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson, as to what specific proposals should be placed on the November ballot. Any changes to the city charter must be approved by voters.
Significant proposals aimed at addressing city governance were sidelined pending further study by a new to-be-established council committee.
A proposal to expand the City Council from 15 to 25 members, plans to implement ranked choice voting, and to divide the city attorney’s role into an elected city prosecutor and appointed city attorney did not receive enough support from committee members for recommendation.
Councilwoman Nithya Raman urged her colleagues to support council expansion, noting it was the heart of the issue that spurred the process.
“I am a little disappointed that we may be punting big questions again to a future charter reform process,” Raman said during Friday’s meeting. “There is a great deal of mistrust in L.A. city government right now.”
While expressing support for a larger council, Harris-Dawson emphasized that doing so could dramatically shift the power between the council and mayor. Ultimately, he was “absolutely opposed” on the matter.
“A bigger council makes the mayor more powerful than the mayor would be now,” Harris-Dawson said Friday. “In every city that has a large council, the mayor is vastly more powerful than the situation that we have in L.A. today…”
The council committee endorsed proposals to give the City Council more oversight of police department policies via ordinance, and allowing noncitizens the opportunity to vote in city and Los Angeles Unified School District elections.
Additionally, the panel of council members supported plans to implement a two-year budget cycle instead of an annual one, creating a capital improvement program to maintain, repair and build out the city’s infrastructure such as streets, sidewalks, street lights, water and power grid, among other essentials.
Parks funding may receive a boost too. The committee backed a proposal by Councilwoman Katy Yaroslavsky to increase funding to about 0.048% of assessed property value over four years, which could provide an estimated $175 million.
At the same time, the city would be able to temporarily reduce up to 30% of that money during a declared fiscal emergency.
Another police-related proposal, which was forwarded without recommendation, would mandate the chief of police to ensure the department protects the constitutional rights of all residents. It would also give the police chief the power to terminate officers for misconduct, though officers would still have the right to appeal the decision.
The committee could not make a determination pending a meet-and-confer process with the Los Angeles Police Protective League, the union representing LAPD officers at the rank of lieutenant and below.
City officials said the union did not respond to requests to begin negotiations.
Committee members urged for the declaration of an impasse before the full council vote to allow action on the matter. Councilman Hugo Soto-Martinez characterized the union’s unresponsiveness as a tactic to prevent the matter from going to the voters.
Councilman John Lee, chair of the council’s Public Safety Committee, voted against the proposals related to the LAPD. He warned that changes to LAPD governance could risk politicizing oversight of the department.
“It’s a much better department. It’s a department that is extremely progressive,” Lee said during Monday’s meeting.
The Los Angeles Police Commission, a panel of five mayoral-appointed members overseeing the LAPD, opposed proposals affecting it.
“Any structural changes that would diminish the BOPC’s independence should be approached with caution, as unintended disruptions to established oversight mechanisms may weaken accountability, reduce operational efficiency and erode public confidence,” according to a letter from the commission to the council.
Certain proposals not approved by the council will be considered by a new ad hoc committee, Harris-Dawson said, which would be expected to discuss and study the measures with the goal of placing them on the ballot in 2028.
The City Council initiated a process to amend the City Charter, following a leaked racially-charged audio recording in 2022. The conversation centered around abusing the redistricting process to coalesce power for themselves.
Four former City Council members faced separate corruption scandals that resulted in federal charges, which contributed to calls for governance reform, transparency and accountability.