LA City Measures
LA City Charter Amendment DD: INDEPENDENT RESDISTRICTING COMMISSION
TLDR: DO YOU WANT POLITICIANS GERRYMANDERING THEIR OWN DISTRICTS?
If you want political influence out of redistricting, you would vote YES.
If you like want our city councilmembers to draw their own lines, and manage their own grasp of power, you would vote NO.
DETAILS
Measure DD, on the November 2024 ballot for Los Angeles, proposes amending the City Charter to establish an Independent Redistricting Commission responsible for redrawing City Council district boundaries every ten years, following the federal census. The measure aims to remove the involvement of the City Council and the Mayor from this process, ensuring that redistricting is fair, transparent, and not influenced by political interests.
Yes Vote: A “yes” vote would create a commission consisting of 16 members and 4 alternates, selected independently, with strict eligibility criteria to prevent conflicts of interest.
No Vote: A “no” would keep the current system unchanged, where elected officials have a role in drawing district lines.
WHAT TO KNOW
Background: Measure DDwas driven by government reform advocates, community groups, and councilmembers who sought to remove political influence from the redistricting process and create a truly independent system. It emerged from a series of public scandals, including the release of a damaging audio recording in 2022, where city councilmembers were caught discussing how to manipulate district boundaries for political gain.
Impact on Angelenos: This reform has been referred to as the "gold standard" by some experts and is part of ongoing efforts to rebuild public trust in the city's governance.
Budget Implications: The budget implications of Measure DD would include the costs of establishing and operating the Independent Redistricting Commission, covering administrative expenses, staffing, public outreach, and necessary technology for redistricting every ten years. While the exact costs are not detailed, similar commissions have required significant funding, but supporters argue that these expenses are justified by promoting fair representation and reducing potential legal challenges related to gerrymandering.
LA City Charter Amendment HH: City governance, appointments, and elections
TLDR: DO YOU WANT BOOST LA’S BUREAUCRACY WITH MORE RED TAPE IN THE NAME OF TRANSPARENCY, OR KEEP THINGS MESSY AS THEY ARE?
If you prioritize streamlining city operations and increasing transparency, you would vote YES.
If you prioritize avoiding more bureaucratic complexity and expanding government powers, you would vote NO.
DETAILS
Charter Amendment HH seeks to improve transparency in Los Angeles city governance by expanding financial disclosures for appointees, enhancing the City Attorney's subpoena powers, and clarifying the Controller's auditing authority. While proponents argue it will streamline operations and boost oversight, critics worry it could add unnecessary complexity without solving deeper issues.
Yes Vote: A “yes” vote would expand financial disclosures, increase oversight powers for the City Attorney and Controller, and streamline certain city appointments.
No Vote: A “no” would keep the current system unchanged, avoiding these additional administrative powers and disclosures
WHAT TO KNOW
Background: Charter Amendment HH was introduced to address concerns about transparency and operational efficiency in Los Angeles city government, following various calls for reform. It aims to enhance oversight powers and clarify roles for key officials, but has sparked debate over whether it introduces too much complexity without solving deeper governance issues
Impact on Angelenos: If Charter Amendment HH passes, Angelenos may see enhanced government transparency and more efficient city management, with increased financial disclosures and stronger oversight by key officials. A no vote would maintain the current processes, potentially avoiding added bureaucracy but preserving the existing system of governance.
Budget Implications: The budget implications of Charter Amendment HH primarily involve potential administrative costs related to enhanced financial disclosures, expanded oversight, and auditing functions. While the amendment doesn't directly specify a set budget increase, implementing additional powers for officials like the City Attorney and Controller could lead to higher operational costs to support the expanded roles and responsibilities. However, supporters argue that these changes could ultimately result in long-term savings through more efficient governance and prevention of corruption or mismanagement.
LA City Charter Amendment II: City Administration and Operations
TLDR: DO YOU WANT TO SUPERCHARGE LA’S BUREAUCRACY WITH MORE OVERSIGHT POWERS AND PAPERWORK, OR WOULD YOU RATHER LET THE CITY CONTINUE IN ITS CURRENT MESSY GLORY?
If you prioritize increased oversight and modernizing city operations, you would vote YES.
If you prioritize avoiding avoiding added bureaucracy and maintaining the current system, you would vote NO.
Measure II proposes to modernize Los Angeles city administration by expanding the oversight powers of the City Controller and City Attorney. This includes enhancing their ability to audit city departments and conduct investigations, with the goal of increasing transparency and efficiency in government operations.
.Yes Vote: A “yes” on Measure II would grant more oversight powers to the City Controller and City Attorney, allowing them to audit and investigate city departments more effectively. This aims to improve transparency and ensure better management of public funds, while addressing inefficiencies in the city’s administration
No Vote: A “no” vote on Measure II would maintain the current powers of the City Controller and City Attorney without expanding their authority to audit or investigate city departments. This would keep the existing oversight structure in place, avoiding potential bureaucratic expansion or additional layers of government control
WHAT TO KNOW
Background: Measure II was introduced in response to growing concerns about inefficiency and lack of transparency in Los Angeles city government. Proponents argue that the City Controller and City Attorney need expanded powers to better oversee and audit city departments, especially in light of ongoing corruption and mismanagement issues. This measure aims to provide the necessary tools to increase accountability while modernizing city operations for better governance.
Impact on Angelenos: If Measure II passes, Angelenos could experience more efficient city operations with increased transparency and accountability, as the City Controller and City Attorney gain greater power to audit and investigate departments.
Budget Implications: The budget implications of Measure II involve potential increased costs due to expanding the auditing and investigative powers of the City Controller and City Attorney. These additional powers could require more staff, resources, and technology to conduct audits and investigations effectively, leading to higher operational expenses. However, supporters argue that the long-term savings from reducing inefficiency, preventing waste, and uncovering corruption could offset the initial costs, potentially leading to more efficient use of public funds in the future.
TLDR: SHOULD WE EXPAND THE LA ETHICS COMMISSION’S POWER AND BUDGET TO IMPROVE GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY, OR MAINTAIN THE CURRENT SYSTEM TO PRESERVE FLEXIBILITY?
If you prioritize government transparency, accountability, and stronger ethical oversight, expanding government accountability and representation, you would vote YES.
If you prioritize budgetary flexibility, concerns over government overreach, or the potential impact on labor and city resources, you would vote NO.
LA City Charter Amendment ER: LA City Ethics Commission reforms
DETAILS
Charter Amendment ER proposes reforms to the Los Angeles City Ethics Commission, aimed at strengthening its independence and enforcement powers. Key changes include increasing the size of the commission, doubling penalties for ethics violations, and securing an independent budget to avoid political interference. While advocates argue it is essential for transparency and accountability, critics express concerns about budget rigidity and potential overreach.
Yes Vote: The yes vote on Charter Amendment ER would expand the Los Angeles City Ethics Commission from five to seven members, increase penalties for ethics violations, and guarantee an independent annual budget for the commission. It would also enhance the commission’s independence and enforcement powers, aiming to reduce corruption and improve government transparency.
No Vote: A no vote would maintain the current structure of the Ethics Commission, keeping it at five members, with penalties for violations remaining lower. The commission would continue to rely on the City Council for its budget, potentially limiting its ability to act independently.
WHAT TO KNOW
Background: The push for Charter Amendment ER arose in response to a series of corruption scandals at Los Angeles City Hall, where several council members faced charges for bribery and other ethical violations. These scandals sparked demands for stronger oversight and reform, leading to the proposal of expanding and strengthening the Ethics Commission to improve government accountability and transparency.
Impact on Angelenos: If Charter Amendment ER passes, Angelenos could expect increased transparency and accountability from city officials, as the Ethics Commission would have greater power to investigate and penalize ethical violations. A no vote would mean the status quo remains, potentially leaving the city more vulnerable to future corruption without stronger oversight.
Budget Implications: Charter Amendment ER would guarantee the Ethics Commission a $6.5 million independent annual budget, ensuring it has the resources for oversight, even during citywide budget cuts or hiring freezes. Critics argue this "ballot box budgeting" could limit the city’s financial flexibility during economic downturns.
LA City Charter Amendment FF: Fire and Police Pensions and Peace Officers Amendment
TLDR: DO YOU WANT LA’S PEACE OFFICERS TO UPGRADE THEIR PENSION PLANS ON THE CITY’S DIME, SWAPPING FOR THE FANCIER FIRE AND POLICE PENSIONS?
If you prioritize giving peace officers better pension options, you would vote YES.
If you prioritize avoiding extra costs to the city for pension upgrades, you would vote NO.
Charter Amendment FF proposes allowing certain peace officers in Los Angeles to transfer their pensions from the City Employees' Retirement System (LACERS) to the more generous Fire and Police Pensions plan (LAFPP). This would require the city to cover the costs associated with these transfers, potentially increasing pension-related expenses. Supporters argue it's a fair upgrade for officers, while critics are concerned about the financial impact on the city budget.
Yes Vote: A "yes" vote means certain peace officers can transfer their pensions to the more generous Fire and Police Pensions plan, with the city covering the costs of the transfer. It could provide better retirement benefits for officers but potentially increase city pension expenses.
No Vote: A "no" vote means peace officers will remain in the current City Employees' Retirement System, preventing the city from incurring additional costs related to pension transfers. This keeps the current pension structure in place without further financial commitments from the city.
WHAT TO KNOW
Background: Charter Amendment FF stems from efforts to align the pension benefits of certain peace officers, like those in the Airport Police, with those of the LAPD and other first responders who are part of the more generous Fire and Police Pensions system. Currently, these officers are in the Los Angeles City Employees' Retirement System (LACERS), which offers less favorable benefits, and the amendment seeks to address this disparity by allowing them to transfer plans, with the city covering the cost of the transition. The measure was introduced as part of broader pension reform discussions to ensure competitive benefits for public safety personnel.
Impact on Angelenos: Angelenos might see this as a move to enhance public safety by offering more competitive pension benefits, potentially helping retain experienced officers. However, increased pension obligations could strain city resources, possibly diverting funds from other public services or requiring future budget adjustments
Budget Implications: The cost impact of Charter Amendment FF would come from the city covering the expenses of transferring peace officers from the City Employees' Retirement System (LACERS) to the more generous Fire and Police Pensions (LAFPP). This could lead to increased pension liabilities for the city, as the LAFPP generally offers higher benefits, potentially putting more strain on the city’s budget to meet future pension obligations.
Charter Amendment LL: LAUSD Redistricting
TLDR: DO YOU THINK AN INDEPENDENT COMMISSION SHOULD REDRAW LAUSD BOUNDARIES?
If you prioritize removing political influence from the process of redrawing LAUSD districts, VOTE YES ON CHARTER AMENDMENT LL,
If you think board members should be able to redraw district boundaries for LAUSD, VOTE NO ON CHARTER AMENDMENT LL.
WHAT TO KNOW
Background: Charter Amendment LL was introduced in response to concerns over gerrymandering and political manipulation in LAUSD redistricting. Advocates believe an independent commission will lead to more equitable district boundaries that reflect the diverse student population.
Impact on Angelenos: If passed, the amendment could result in more balanced school board representation, potentially improving the quality of governance and ensuring fairer representation of students and communities in the redistricting process.
Budget Implications: The creation of an independent commission may incur additional costs related to its operation, including hiring staff, conducting research, and organizing public hearings. However, proponents argue that long-term benefits, such as fair representation, outweigh the financial impact.
DETAILS
Charter Amendment LL proposes the creation of an independent redistricting commission to redraw LAUSD Board of Education district boundaries every 10 years. The commission would be tasked with removing political influence from the redistricting process, ensuring fair representation for students and communities. The amendment follows similar reforms applied to city council redistricting.
Yes Vote: A “yes” vote means voters support establishing an independent commission to oversee the redrawing of LAUSD Board district boundaries, aiming for a non-partisan and fair redistricting process.
No Vote: A “no” vote would keep the current system in place, where LAUSD district boundaries are redrawn by elected officials, allowing for potential political influence.