More Supes? Don’t Hold Your Breath

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors meeting last Tuesday illustrated one of the political obstacles preventing reform of the lumbering county bureaucracy.

The supes voted to study expansion of the board from five to seven members. But so much conflict surrounded the vote that I wouldn’t bet on any changes in the near future.

At the meeting, Seth Hufstedler, a prominent attorney representing the Los Angeles County Bar Assn., supported the expansion of the board, along with election of a county executive, or mayor, to actually run the huge government and represent it before the Legislature and Congress.

Hufstedler was a lonely witness. Although he’s a name partner in a downtown power law firm, none of downtown’s heavy hitters from business and law showed up at the Hall of Administration to support his position. It was just Hufstedler and a representative of Common Cause, the political reform group.

Especially damaging to his hopes was the absence of any representative from the complex of businesses most dependent on the supervisors’ zoning power--real estate, development and construction. These are the businesses that buy tickets at supervisorial fund-raising dinners, and grease their way through Hall of Administration offices with gifts, dinners and out-of-town trips.

Not that anyone expected them. They want no change. They must have been particularly offended by Hufstedler’s support for Common Cause’s proposal that county government reform be accompanied by disclosure of campaign contributions, honorariums and gifts.

I learned about their attitude one day talking to a developer. He’s interested in government reform and I suggested he tackle the county. He looked surprised and said he thought things ran well up at the Hall of Administration.

“You can get things done at the county,” he said.

He was correct, for his business. All he had to do was win the support of three of the five supervisors. In fact, he’d probably like it better if there were only two supervisors. Or one.

Developers and the like are by no means alone in their belief that a small board is a better board. In the past, most voters also have rejected the notion that they would be better served by more supervisors--in part because they rarely are served by the board at all. The county is the government of the poor, the accused and the criminal, serving them through its hospitals, courts and jails.

As these clients don’t often vote, the board’s lukewarm mainstream support has translated into failed efforts in the past to expand it. The last effort, 12 years ago, was similar to the present plan. In the end, the voters defeated the proposal, obviously figuring that if five supervisors couldn’t do the job, why add two more.

I’m sympathetic to the voters’ skepticism, but increasing the size of the board might well improve public access to supervisors.

Currently each Los Angeles County supervisor represents about 1.7 million people, while other elected officials have fewer constituents. A member of Congress from California serves between 500,000 and 600,000. A Los Angeles City Council member represents slightly more than 200,000.

The addition of an elected county mayor might remedy another defect in county government. There’s no executive. The supervisors are the legislative and executive branch, all wrapped into one, and pork-barreling results.

County office buildings and other facilities from Long Beach to Pomona all have something in common: A big sign in front prominently displaying the name of the supervisor representing that particular district.

The supes divide available funds by five and build as many nameplate projects as they can. Nobody says no, especially Chief Administrative Officer Richard Dixon, who is the closest thing the supervisors have to a fiscal watchdog. His watchdog’s sharp teeth and keen gaze are dulled by the fact that he holds his job at the pleasure of the supervisors.

This year, the cynical attitude toward reform may be out of step with new realities.

Gov. Pete Wilson has proposed giving county governments much more power, more state aid--and increased ability to raise taxes.

Health care for the poor and many social welfare services, now run under strict state rules, would be run at the county’s discretion, without state bureaucrats setting illogical rules.

The importance of supervisors would grow. Access would be more crucial. So would accountability.

“A big opportunity--and a big challenge,” is how one Los Angeles County official described the coming changes. Too big for the status quo.