Title Change: Mayor of Los Angeles County

Your editorial (Oct. 31) on the new position of county mayor brushes aside too lightly Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite Burke’s comment (Oct. 30) that this action will give people a better understanding that the Board of Supervisors exercises executive authority. The county has 1 million residents in its unincorporated areas, and the supervisors are the mayors to those areas. In addition, the board oversees municipal services--such as fire and police protection, and public works--in more than one-half of the 88 cities. Designation of a county mayor will also give more focus to our legislative efforts in Sacramento and Washington.

By the way, your snide comments about the work of the board were interesting given your praise earlier this year of our innovative restructuring of the county’s $2-billion health care system, and also given your endorsement for election, or reelection, of a majority of the sitting supervisors.

MICHAEL D. ANTONOVICH

Mayor, County of Los Angeles

Mayor of Los Angeles County? What nonsense! I vote for a president for my country, a governor for my state and a mayor for my city. No one can be a real mayor of my county unless I get a chance to vote for one. And neither Antonovich, an ideologue from the right, nor Zev Yaroslavsky, an ideologue from the left, could win a countywide election.

M. STEPHEN SHELDON

Studio City

Your article on the vote by the supervisors to change the title of the board’s chairman to “mayor” notes that “reform-minded groups” such as the League of Women Voters “have long advocated the creation of such a post.” Let me assure you that we had in mind far more than a name change.

Currently, the board combines legislative and executive powers. A mere name change does nothing to separate these powers. The League of Women Voters of Los Angeles County has worked both alone and in coalition with others to establish a separate, elected chief executive, as well as to increase the size of the board and thus decrease the number of constituents per supervisor. Proposals for reform were on the ballot in 1972, 1974, 1984, and most recently in November 1992.

In 1992, Prop. B called for a chief executive to be elected countywide, so that the officeholder would be responsible to all county voters, and would concentrate on making day-to-day operations of county departments efficient and cost-effective. The Board of Supervisors would have had veto power over the chief executive’s decisions.

A mere name change has none of these benefits, but has the disadvantage of adding confusion to an already confusing situation. We urge the supervisors to reconsider their action and prevent predictable confusion.

JEAN E. BERGER, President

League of Women Voters

of Los Angeles County