Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Commission topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves implementation steps for county ethics commission after contentious debate over appointments
Summary
After extensive public comment and debate over how commissioners should be selected, the Board of Supervisors voted to move forward with an ordinance and charter amendment process to establish a County Ethics Commission and Office of Ethics Compliance; the board accepted a set of amendments to the Governance Reform Task Force recommendations.
The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted May 19 to begin implementing Measure G by directing the drafting of an interim ordinance and a proposed charter amendment to establish an independent County Ethics Commission and an Office of Ethics Compliance. The motion, introduced by Supervisor Lindsey Horvath and amended during a lengthy public hearing, passed on a 5-0 vote.
Supporters said the commission will create a centralized structure for oversight, enforcement and education on ethics rules across county government. Members of the Governance Reform Task Force (GRTF) presented detailed recommendations including an independent staff office and a nomination and confirmation process intended to broaden public participation. Nicholas Hydorn, who led benchmarking work for the task force, described a package of safeguards the task force recommended, including dedicated budget protections and post‑service restrictions to preserve the commission's independence.
The debate focused heavily on how commissioners would be chosen. Task force members and a broad set of community groups urged that a majority of commissioners be selected through a community‑centered public process to ensure independence from elected officials. Several supervisors, while endorsing the creation of the commission, proposed changes that would allow additional appointments by elected offices; that proposed change drew dozens of public speakers and written comments urging the board to preserve the public‑selection majority.
Supervisor Holly J. Mitchell moved amendments to align the ordinance more closely with the task force recommendations; Supervisor Janice Hahn, who said she favored a model closer to the County's independent redistricting commission, urged greater steps to insulate appointment authority from elected officials. After discussion the board accepted a package of amendments and directed county counsel to return with the draft ordinance and recommended ballot language for a charter amendment.
County staff provided initial cost estimates and implementation questions: the task force estimated roughly 54 full‑time positions and an initial one‑time implementation cost in the low millions, while the Auditor‑Controller highlighted that ongoing costs could be substantially higher and required additional policy decisions regarding funding sources consistent with Measure G's limits on new tax burdens. Chief counsel and the executive office agreed to coordinate with the task force and provide clarifying guidance about what elements require a charter change versus what can be implemented by ordinance.
The board set a schedule for county counsel to return with the draft interim ordinance and recommended ballot language, and asked for follow‑up on budget and administration questions. The motion directs staff to preserve the public‑facing recruitment and nomination processes emphasized by the task force and to include recommendations on staffing levels, reporting lines, and protections intended to make the commission both operationally independent and accountable.
What happens next: county counsel and the executive office will prepare a draft ordinance for the board's consideration and propose charter language for placement on a future ballot. The board asked for written follow ups addressing funding sources, the scope of authority, and details of the nomination process before formal implementation begins.
