The Trap Los Angeles County Voters Keep Setting for Themselves : Elections: The defeat of Propositions B and C is bad news for officials eager for change. An opportunity to create leaders has been lost.

Almost anyone who has anything to do with government, especially local government, complains that it does not have enough authority to do what needs to be done. Judging by the lopsided defeats of Propositions B and C, which would have created the post of Los Angeles County executive and enlarged the Board of Supervisors by four, respectively, everyone else thinks government has too much authority, and they will be damned if they will give politicians any more power.

Pity. Propositions B and C, if passed, would have created an L.A. county government commensurate with the county’s national and international economic clout. Certainly, the power of the county executive would have been second only to that of the governor, giving the county some desperately needed advantages. At a time when demands for strong and focused leadership abound, the two propositions would have delivered it. So why were they trounced at the polls?

True, most ballot measures are defeated, as they should be: The ballot is a terrible way to make law. And without party cues, campaigns for and against them have unusual power to make public policy. But sometimes, reform worthy of support gets caught in the cross-fire.

The most visible opponents of the county measures were the anti-taxers, who warned that passage of Proposition C would cost taxpayers money (forget about the possibility of a county executive who would be accountable for his or her expenditures). According to a consultant who briefly considered running the B and C campaign, the business community, while attracted to the idea of a strong executive, worried about creating more politicians who would need to be fed and coddled. Most likely, voters who said “no” bought this line of reasoning, thinking they were denying politicians and protecting their wallets.

Two other arguments against the propositions were less traditional. The Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund feared a larger board would dilute the power of Gloria Molina. (Ironically, Molina was one of three supervisors, along with Ed Edelman and Kenneth Hahn, who supported the county propositions.) And the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People opposed a single county executive because he or she would probably not be an African-American. Non-whites, it was said, need more time to put together a coalition.

MALDEF’s and the NAACP’s reasoning is troubling. Are they and their loyalists redefining representative government to mean that someone who is not Latino or African-American cannot speak for them, or protect their interests? Are political interests solely defined in terms of ethnic origins? Edelman, among others, was dismayed by such arguments, because they implicitly spurn the idea that something good for the community may be good for the groups that make it up. “Right now,” he said, “we divide by five, and the money doesn’t go where it would do the most good.”

Propositions B and C would have, to some extent, alleviated this unhappy outcome by giving Los Angeles County the opportunity to provide leadership for the entire region. A single executive speaking for the county would fare far better in negotiations with state and federal governments. There would be no mistaking his or her’s clarity of purpose. As it is, we hear occasional grumbling interrupted by fleeting cries of outrage over the misuse of county funds, or the insensitivity of county officials. While fighting against abuse is important, fighting for something requires more focus.

Proponents of B and C--most notably, the League of Women Voters and Common Cause--lacked the money to run a campaign that targeted the public’s distrust of politicians. If the proposals turn up on future ballots, as is likely, the campaigns behind them must set out to educate the public about the realities of government life. Governments are ineffective because they lose legitimacy in the eyes of their constituents. Restoring their effectiveness requires infusing government with a new sense of legitimacy.

The rush of fresh air resulting from Bill Clinton’s decisive electoral victory will help accomplish this. But the structure of county and city government in Los Angeles is still a trap for officials eager for change. Sadly, the defeat of Propositions B and C ensures this will remain so in the near future.