Commentary : Board Didn’t Do Homework on Its Plan to Add Members : Politics: We need to learn from past failures before we go ahead with a proposal to expand the number of supervisors.

I support board expansion and creation of a county executive. However, the recent hasty action by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors to prepare measures for the November 2000 general election that would expand the current five-member board to nine and create a new elected office of county executive could well prove true the adage--”We always seem to find the time to do something over but never can find the time to do it right the first time.”

While I did not vote for these measures, if they are on the ballot, it will be the third time in three decades that the voters of Los Angeles County have been presented with the issue of board expansion and the second time they will have voted on creating a county executive position.

In 1976, only 35% of voters supported Proposition B, a measure to expand the board to nine members. In 1992, voters soundly rejected both Proposition B, which would have created a nine-member board, and Proposition C, which also would have created a county executive office. Additionally, as recently as this year, while Los Angeles city voters overwhelmingly approved charter reform, they handily defeated the two companion measures to increase the size of the City Council.

This history should give us pause.

We should be concerned not that these important reforms have resurfaced--they are much-needed and long-overdue improvements to enhance representation and accountability of local government. They have consistently been endorsed by such champions of good government as the League of Women Voters, Common Cause, the California Taxpayers Assn., as well as other civic, business and professional organizations.

We should be concerned because these worthy reforms will once again meet almost certain defeat unless we take the time and effort to act correctly. Thus far, the process suggests the opposite will occur. The ink was barely dry on the motions to set this whole process moving when they appeared on the Board of Supervisors’ agenda. The public received only three days’ notice--the minimum the law allows--before they were approved.

I was concerned before the 1992 effort to adopt these measures that inadequate public input and coalition-building at the outset along with the failure to offer voters a comprehensive reform package, including ethics reform, would lead to their defeat.

Unfortunately, I was right. I don’t want to be right again. If we are sincere about reform, we must do it differently this time.

We should begin at the beginning. We should examine why the past measures failed. Did they do so because of ineffective campaigns, or something more?

We should reexamine the entire array of governmental reforms that could lead to enhanced accountability, a more responsive local government and, of course, victory at the polls.

Should a comprehensive reform package be developed that includes an independent auditor-controller? Conflict of interest regulations? Ethics regulations? Perhaps. They all must be examined in an open forum, with active public participation.

The last time a similar examination was conducted was nearly 25 years ago. In 1976, under the leadership of Seth Hufstedler and Harold Williams, the Public Commission on Los Angeles County Government performed a thorough review of Los Angeles County government. Their final report served as a basis for all reform proposals developed since then.

Los Angeles County has grown to a population of 10 million with no slowdown in sight. It is time to figure out which reforms would best increase the effectiveness, responsiveness and accountability of our government, and which are most likely to lead to victory at the polls. We should hear and consider public opinion, and develop the widest array of support.

One way to accomplish this would be to reestablish the Public Commission and charge it with a reexamination of these issues. It may take a few months or more, but it can greatly increase our chances of doing it right and lessen the chances that it will have to be done over.