L.A.: Big County’s Big Need to Change

When a new Los Angeles County chief administrative officer takes over in March, there will be little cause for celebration. The shift, instead, will be another sign of trouble afflicting the state’s biggest county government.

Treasurer-Tax Collector Richard B. Dixon may yet do the best job possible of coordinating Los Angeles County’s almost $7 billion in annual spending and the work of more than 75,000 employes. Dixon has climbed steadily through the county bureaucracy, starting as a court aide at age 21, showing a sharp eye for detail, an understanding of public finance and a recognition of the peculiar brand of politics played in the County Hall of Administration.

But he faces the same sometimes-impossible working conditions that led to the departure of his two most recent predecessors, James C. Hankla, who leaves March 1, and Harry L. Hufford. Both CAOs failed to carry out goals of reforming a cumbersome county bureaucracy, dominated by the five powerful elected members of the Board of Supervisors who too often do their supervising in a manner designed to protect and promote their own political careers.

The CAO receives $112,000 a year, hired by the same supervisors who can also fire the CAO any time three members of the board are unhappy.

The question of the quality of county administration touches millions of lives. This huge layer of local government affects anyone who ends up in court, calls the sheriff, uses a county hospital, spends a day at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, hears the symphony at the county-run Music Center, applies for welfare, complains about the accuracy of a supermarket scale, fights traffic on the way to Sunday brunch at the county-owned Marina del Rey or relies on a county flood control channel for protection from heavy winter rains. The county is also a major force in the future of rich, undeveloped land in attractive places such as Malibu, the Santa Clarita Valley, the high desert around Palmdale and other unincorporated areas where county government has power over zoning.

Hankla, who will become Long Beach city manager, stayed on the job just two years before quitting. He said he had long been interested in becoming city manager of Long Beach, where as a top official he had supervised the redevelopment of downtown. But associates also said he was frustrated by failure to achieve his goals in the county and that he was attracted by a city manager’s power over city bureaucracy. Hufford was CAO for a decade, including the tumultuous period of the conservative takeover of the board in the early 1980s. Although Hufford never complained publicly, friends said that he shared some of Hankla’s frustrations and felt increasingly hindered by supervisorial interference. He quit to take charge of administrative and support services for the law firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.

Now, people wonder went wrong. Two respected public servants, each with different managerial styles, faced the same obstacles; top county managers, other officials and lobbyists are asking why.

In private conversations, experts blame an antiquated government structure controlled by supervisors who act as both legislators and executives, passing laws and trying to oversee the day-to-day operations of a government with responsibilities ranging from running hospitals to sponsoring cultural activities. A visit to board meetings often confirms that view. Supervisors, on the dais above Hankla and the other officials, exercise huge authority on the tiniest issues. A newspaper story may have revealed some transgression within a department. No matter how small the matter, a supervisor, aware of the television cameras, may flail away at the department head and CAO, demanding an immediate investigation.

Department heads wait in an adjoining room or in the audience for a dread summons to the dais. Some, enjoying friendly, first-name relationships with supervisors, get off easy; they can almost ignore the CAO. The chief administrative officer, theoretically analogous to a corporate chief executive officer, is, on some days, reduced to the status of a messenger, telling his skilled staff of government analysts to hurry up with a report to satisfy a supervisor. The analysts quickly begin their task, knowing the supervisor may forget about the whole thing if something new comes along.

Hankla, a tough administrator, arrived with a program that seemed perfect for members of the board’s conservative majority--Deane Dana from the coastal area, Pete Schabarum from the San Gabriel Valley and new chairman Mike Antonovich, whose district stretches from Pasadena through the San Fernando Valley and into the high desert. Two other supervisors are liberals--Ed Edelman, whose district includes East and West Los Angeles, and Kenneth Hahn, representing an area from South Los Angeles through Inglewood.

Knowing how Proposition 13 had reduced county property tax revenue--and that neither Washington nor Sacramento would provide more financial aid--Hankla tried to get more work out of every dollar from the county bureaucracy and force government to implement policies that would increase county revenue.

On the work front, he backed an amendment to the County Charter in last year’s election to remove Civil Service protection from top executives and give them pay raises only on the basis of merit. It was a sharp departure from a tradition placing a high premium on executive obsequiousness. The supervisors did not seem to share Hankla’s enthusiasm. Liberal Hahn opposed the idea and the conservatives, while supporting the measure, did not push the energetic fund-raising needed to win electoral victory. The measure lost, much to Hankla’s disappointment. Recent supervisorial approval of part of his plan--executive raises for merit only--was a small consolation.

On the revenue-raising side, Hankla proposed a major program of leasing and developing county property, including construction of office buildings and hotels near Civic Center.

Progress in this and other potential revenue-producing areas has been sluggish. One reason is turf. Each supervisor, by tradition, is absolute master of county affairs within his huge district. Dana, for example, has landlord-like power over development plans around the Marina del Rey, a huge source of potential county revenue. No other supervisor will interfere, even if he thinks the approach is misguided, because Dana, in turn, may interfere with his turf. Then the whole system of old boy favor-trading would break down.

And if the CAO produces a reasoned study showing that a pet supervisorial approach is too costly, he may find himself summoned to the eighth floor, where the supervisors have their offices, for a private reprimand.

County government has operated this way for decades. What is ironic is its persistence; after the 1980 elections, when conservatives took power, a new and more businesslike operation was promised.

Over the years, reforms have been suggested. One is for a strong county executive, with the supervisors giving up executive authority in order to spend time setting broad policy and ministering to constituents. That reform was turned down by voters several years ago. Another is to revise the charter, giving the CAO power to hire or fire department heads and to execute policies voted by the supervisors. That, too, would require a vote by the people.

News from Sacramento of increasing demands on the state for medical aid to the poor and other social programs indicates the county budget situation will continue to be tight and demand imaginative revenue-raising. The changing population of the county, with the number of poor increasing, will only add pressure. This new year, with a new CAO, is a good time for a new look at the way Los Angeles County is run.