Make California Post a Preferred Source My colleague on the LA County Board of Supervisors, Lindsey Horvath, has announced her campaign for LA County’s newest elected office: County executive.
The election is only in 2028. Before anyone starts campaigning, shouldn’t we first know if the position is even constitutional?
That’s not the only question taxpayers should be asking.
The new county executive could make about $558,000 per year, including benefits and pension eligibility. That’s far more than the governor’s salary.
The position has no term limits, requires no professional qualifications and would oversee a $54 billion budget and more than 110,000 county employees.
That’s an extraordinary amount of power and taxpayer money to put in one person’s hands, especially when serious legal questions remain unanswered.
When our nation was founded, one of our rallying cries was “No taxation without representation.” Yet in one of America’s most populated counties, we may be heading in the opposite direction: More taxation, less representation.
In 2024, LA County voters narrowly approved Measure G, a sweeping overhaul of county government that was crammed onto the ballot in just 21 days, without sufficient time to think through the consequences.
The measure passed with just 51.6% of the vote. Supporters emphasized the creation of a new Ethics Commission and expansion of the Board of Supervisors from five members to nine, promising greater representation and accountability.
But quietly tucked into those reforms was another major change: Replacing the county’s appointed and professionally qualified chief executive officer with an elected county executive.
The new county executive would have the power to veto board decisions, oversee county contracts and take on responsibilities that state law currently places in the hands of the Board of Supervisors.
Former federal judge Stephen Larson, representing former LA City Councilman Dennis Zine, has raised serious constitutional concerns about whether the county can legally transfer its powers to a newly elected official.
The challenge also questions whether taxpayer dollars can lawfully be spent preparing to establish an office whose authority remains in dispute.
These are fair and valid questions and shouldn’t be dismissed as minor legal technicalities.
That’s why I supported the board’s Oct. 20 decision to pause implementation of the new structure for 90 days. The process was moving too quickly, with too little public scrutiny.
One proposal would have created a new county Legislative Analyst office more than a year ahead of schedule, without even providing a cost estimate. That’s not responsible planning. I call that asking taxpayers to sign a blank check.
Meanwhile, public participation in discussions about these sweeping changes has been very limited. Only a few residents have attended meetings, either in person or online.
For a decision that will fundamentally reshape how the nation’s most populous county is governed, that should concern everyone.
Some critics have suggested that raising these concerns makes me a bureaucrat resistant to change. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Measure G passed, and I respect the voters’ decision. But respecting voters also means making sure the government they approved can legally operate, is financially responsible and delivers the accountability voters were promised.
That’s also why I’ve pledged not to run for county executive and urged my colleagues to make the same commitment. Elected officials helping design a powerful new office shouldn’t be positioning themselves to occupy it. Public service should never be about creating the next political opportunity.
And while county leaders debate new titles, salaries and political power, residents are waiting for their government to deliver on basic needs.
The homebound senior still needs food delivered. The person experiencing homelessness on your block still needs effective outreach and services. Families in Altadena are still struggling to rebuild after the Eaton Fire. Those needs cannot take a back seat to creating another layer of government.
At a time when voters are demanding greater accountability, we should be asking a simple question: How does creating a new, powerful, highly paid office make government more accountable?
And why would we move forward before knowing whether the position can legally exercise its powers?
Before candidates ask voters to entrust them with this position, LA County needs clear answers about its legality.
If changes are necessary, we should be willing to return to voters with a measure that establishes appropriate limits and checks on power.
Let’s roll up our sleeves and get the foundation right before building an office this powerful. We can’t afford to get it wrong.
Kathryn Barger is a member of the LA County Board of Supervisors for the 5th District.
California Post News: Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, X, YouTube, WhatsApp, LinkedInCalifornia Post Sports Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, XCalifornia Post Opinion California Post Newsletters: Sign up here!California Post App: Download here!Home delivery: Sign up here!Page Six Hollywood: Sign up here!
