As the country approaches another consequential midterm election, the importance of democratic institutions, checks and balances and government accountability has become increasingly difficult to overlook. Much of the national conversation centers on protecting democratic principles at the federal level, but those same principles are just as essential at the state and local levels. After all, some of the decisions with the most direct impact on people’s everyday lives are made within local government, making transparency and public oversight just as important at the municipal level.
In Los Angeles, that conversation is unfolding around Measure LA and the future of the Board of Public Works, an institution that has overseen the city’s infrastructure and public services since 1905. The five-member, mayor-appointed board oversees more than 5,500 city employees across departments responsible for sanitation, street lighting, engineering, street repairs and other essential services. It also plays a significant role in overseeing billions of dollars in public infrastructure projects and approving more than 85% of the city’s construction contracts. Beyond managing projects, the board provides a public forum where contracts are reviewed, neighborhood concerns are heard and decisions involving taxpayer dollars are subject to multiple layers of scrutiny.
Measure LA would give the City Council the authority to eliminate or restructure the board, potentially replacing its five-member leadership with a single director. Supporters argue the current structure creates unnecessary bureaucracy, divides responsibility between departments and makes it difficult to determine who is accountable when projects stall or city services fall short. They believe consolidating authority would establish a clearer chain of command and ultimately lead to better services for Angelenos.
But the larger question is whether greater efficiency necessarily translates into better government. Opponents warn that eliminating a five-member oversight body could concentrate too much authority in the hands of one individual, limiting public participation and weakening the independent scrutiny that helps guard against mismanagement and corruption. The board oversees an extensive workforce and a significant portion of the city’s public contracts, responsibilities that demand more than simply getting projects across the finish line. Those responsibilities require ensuring public funds are spent responsibly, contracts are awarded fairly and decisions are made in the best interests of the communities the board serves.
As former board member Valerie Lynne Shaw says, “Power in the hands of many better serves the city as opposed to power in the hands of one.”
There is no question L.A. city government needs to address its inefficiencies. Residents deserve functioning streets, timely infrastructure repairs and departments that communicate and work together effectively. But streamlining government should not come at the expense of the oversight and accountability that help ensure those services are delivered responsibly. A system that moves faster but offers fewer opportunities for public scrutiny is not necessarily a better one. Efficiency without accountability risks not only undermining the quality of public services but also weakening the transparency and public trust that effective government depends on.
There is also a broader concern with how this proposal is being presented to voters. A potential restructuring of a board that has existed for more than 120 years is being bundled into a larger ballot measure alongside other governance proposals. When such a consequential change is packaged with more widely supported reforms, voters may not have the opportunity to fully consider the implications of what they are being asked to approve.
As the midterms approach, the country is once again reminded of how essential checks and balances are to a functioning democracy. They are not obstacles to effective government but safeguards against unchecked authority. That principle cannot apply selectively. It must extend to every level of government, including the local institutions entrusted with managing public resources and serving communities. The measure of a functioning democracy is not simply how efficiently its government operates but whether it remains accountable and responsive to the people it represents.
Government exists to serve the public, not to prioritize its own convenience or consolidate the power of those entrusted to lead it. Protecting that principle is not just a national responsibility; it begins at the local level.
The post Measure LA Raises Questions About the Future of Public Oversight appeared first on LAmag.
