The Los Angeles Charter Reform Commission, formed in the aftermath of significant scandals within City Hall, is encountering mounting concerns regarding its transparency and independence.
As it approaches the halfway mark in its timeline, there is skepticism among commissioners and city officials about the commission’s ability to make meaningful progress in revising the city’s charter, an essential document that serves as the city’s version of a constitution.
Commissioners, city officials, and advocates for good governance have expressed doubts about the commission’s effectiveness, with one commissioner stating it feels as though they are ‘still at square one.’
Established after City Hall scandals, the commission’s primary objective is to suggest revisions to the charter that could be presented to voters, potentially leading to significant changes for the city’s governance.
City officials have proposed several topics for the commission to address, including expanding the City Council, adopting a ranked-choice voting system, setting standards for the removal of city officials facing indictment, and allowing the mayor to submit a biannual budget instead of the current annual cycle.
However, there is increasing apprehension that city officials might use the commission depending on their own political agendas or as a means to delay necessary reforms.
Raymond Meza, chair of the commission, emphasized their independence and acknowledged the time constraints they face, which may require them to prioritize certain issues over others.
‘I just want to be honest with the public,’ Meza stated. ‘Considering the amount of time that we have, I know that we are going to absolutely do our best.’
The commission’s journey began with a plan approved by the City Council in July 2024, which indicated that the commission’s members would be appointed by various city leaders.
The initial eight appointees nominated five more members through an open application process.
According to the schedule set by city analysts, all members were expected to be appointed by the end of 2024, allowing nearly 15 months for discussions and draft recommendations to be finalized and forwarded to the City Council.
However, due to delays, the commission couldn’t commence its work until May 2025, eight months later than anticipated, when the final four commissioners were appointed by Mayor Bass.
In the interim, one member resigned, which left a vacancy that still awaited a nominee from Councilmember Bob Blumenfield.
That vacancy remains unfilled after Dennis Zine withdrew his nomination, which led to further discussions about the commission’s independence.
Zine, who had previously served on the Charter Reform Commission in the 1990s, cited his inability to work alongside a body he perceives to be hostile towards the LAPD.
The committee responsible for scheduling his confirmation has not arranged a vote on the matter, leaving the commission with a total of 12 members instead of the 13 intended.
The first meeting took place on June 10, but concerns were already prevalent regarding the limited amount of time to make substantial recommendations.
By the end of June, five additional commissioners were appointed, moving closer to undertaking their primary task of revising the charter.
Despite this progress, multiple commissioners conveyed feelings that a lack of significant movement has occurred in addressing major concerns, such as corruption and city council size.
One member noted their primary discussions have centered around ranked-choice voting, which they deemed a secondary concern.
‘We are still at square one,’ said one commissioner, reflecting worries about the commission’s ability to deliver impactful recommendations in the limited timeframe.
Chair Meza acknowledged that the tight schedule presents challenges and may require the commission to limit its scope to cover essential topics.
‘Over the next few months, the commission may have to narrow that even more,’ he said.
Despite the challenges, Meza remains optimistic about the commission’s capability to make expansive recommendations within the remaining time.
The Mayor’s office stated that Mayor Bass’ appointments were made with careful consideration, asserting the commission is adequately on pace to submit findings to the City Council by early 2026.
Concerns extend beyond timelines; questions regarding transparency and the commission’s independence are emerging as pressing issues.
Several commissioners noted they were discouraged from speaking to the press, which raises alarms about the commission’s openness.
One commissioner revealed that they were instructed to direct media inquiries only to the chairperson, Meza.
Both Meza and Justin Ramirez, the commission’s executive director, denied that such directives were given.
A prevalent sentiment among some commissioners has been a lack of real progress on critical matters.
One commissioner claimed, ‘We are nowhere—still gathering data,’ especially concerning matters of corruption.
They expressed concerns that discussions on ranked-choice voting take precedence over issues related to accountability and governance efficiency.
‘I want to get to the things that will help the city run better,’ the commissioner stated. ‘I don’t think ranked-choice voting is any panacea.’
Despite the challenges faced, there remains hope among some for an uptick in productivity, yet the path forward seems uncertain.
Commission chair Meza acknowledged the significant time limitations and indicated that they would need to prioritize their focus areas moving forward.
In light of these concerns, Rev. James Thomas, a commission member and prominent community figure, has highlighted ongoing issues faced by Black Angelenos.
Thomas voiced frustration regarding the lack of attention to the fastest growing Black population in Los Angeles, particularly in areas like Skid Row.
His revelation about being excluded from discussions, such as a recent town hall, has raised questions about representation on the commission.
The decision to limit participation in public meetings based on the members present has compounded feeling of exclusion among some commissioners.
‘I don’t see anybody speaking, really, directly to our issues,’ Thomas remarked. ‘They want me to shut up, and I’m not going to shut up.’
In response to concerns regarding transparency, Mayor Bass’ office reasserted her commitment to transparency and encouraged public engagement among commission members.
‘Public engagement is essential for making accurate recommendations,’ the office stated.
While Mayor Bass affirmed the commission’s independence, some members believe the leadership structure raises questions about bias.
Commissioner Thomas argued that the concentration of leadership among mayoral appointees could hinder the commission’s credibility.
‘We cannot look like an arm of the mayor because we get nowhere if we do that,’ he said.
Thomas maintains that this perception may undermine public trust, questioning whether the commission genuinely operates independently of the mayor’s influence.
Investigations into staff dynamics within the commission have also surfaced, with fears that the mayor’s appointees may not serve the commission’s interest.
Good government advocate Rob Quan reported significant transparency issues, noting that the mayor’s selections for commission staff troubled the effectiveness and independence of the commission’s work.
‘Commissioners should have a say in staff matters,’ he remarked, highlighting that staff influences decision-making without accountability to commissioners.
One commissioner echoed this concern, revealing that they received directives from staff, calling the behavior inappropriate.
Despite these challenges, Meza insists they are working towards greater transparency and establishing a clear communication channel between the commission and the elected officials.
He pointed out that the unique structure provides commissioners with the opportunity to select members from a diverse pool of applicants.
City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez expressed skepticism about the commission’s balance of power and noted the disproportionate influence stemming from the concentration of mayoral appointees.
Rodriguez stressed the need for increased scrutiny regarding communications between commissioners, mayoral staff, and city leaders, recommending a motion for disclosure to ensure accountability.
The motion has yet to be voted on by the rules committee, which Harris-Dawson leads.
Meza has sought to establish boundaries regarding communications, stating he prefers a public forum for discussing recommendations with city officials.
While tensions rise, Meza remains committed to transparency, suggesting a collaboration where city officials can share their thoughts during public commission meetings.
As for the future of the commission, Meza outlined the planned proceedings, which include hearing from various stakeholders and experts in future committee meetings.
Later this year, the commission will begin voting on recommendations for charter changes with the objective of finalizing the language for submission to the City Council by early April 2026.
Following the council’s consideration, recommendations may appear on the November 2026 ballot for voters.
Meza highlighted the importance of the commission’s work as it directly impacts fundamental services residents rely on, such as infrastructure and public safety.
He encouraged Angelenos to participate in the process through newsletters, social media, or their official website, underlining the relevance of charter reform to community well-being.
image source from：laist
