Citizen Portal
Sign In

Charter reform commission asks committee to allow outside counsel; budget and procurement questions raised

Comité de Reglas, Elecciones y Relaciones Intergubernamentales (Los Angeles City) · February 2, 2026

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Charter Reform Commission reported it has requested outside legal counsel because commissioners perceived a conflict of interest with the city attorney’s office; staff said a procurement process is underway and the commission cited a draft budget with up to $1,000,000 available and initial flexibility of $500,000.

Committee members heard a report from the Charter Reform Commission on the commission’s request to hire outside legal counsel to advise on possible changes to the city’s prosecutorial/fiscal structure and other charter language.

Justin Ramírez, identified in the record as director of the Charter Reform Commission, told the committee that commissioners perceived a potential conflict of interest if the city attorney’s office provided legal advice on restructuring the office and therefore sought external counsel. Ramírez said the city attorney’s office has acknowledged the issue and is running a procurement (licitation) process to solicit outside counsel proposals.

Members asked for clarification about funding and the procurement timeline. The transcript records that the commission’s 2025–26 projection includes up to $1,000,000 for the commission’s work, with the staff indicating they could begin with $500,000. Commissioners asked whether the city attorney’s office would evaluate bidders and confirmed that the commission would make the final selection after the procurement process. Ramírez said staff is drafting statutory language for proposed changes and is reviewing other jurisdictions, including the county’s model, to avoid problems similar to Measure G.

Committee members urged a rapid timeline and asked staff to return with a clear budget status, procurement scoring approach and a recommended schedule for council authorization. The committee deferred final action and asked staff to return with more detailed information.

Next steps: staff to report back on procurement bids, final budget impact and draft statutory language; no contract or hiring decision was approved at this meeting.