A Tough but Needed Sell

It looks like Los Angeles County residents will have another opportunity to vote for a substantial expansion of the five-member Board of Supervisors. Supervisor Don Knabe next week will submit a motion to put a proposed increase on the Nov. 7 ballot. But the effort will amount to another exercise in futility unless advocates explain and champion this eminently sensible cause.

The challenge is formidable. Tax increases, for example, have fared better at the polls than board expansion. Three times voters have soundly rejected such a proposal, last defeating it 65% to 35%, in 1992. A similar measure to expand the Los Angeles City Council was emphatically rejected by voters last year.

The catalyst for Board of Supervisors expansion this time is state Sen. Richard Polanco (D-Los Angeles), who is successfully promoting in the Legislature a ballot measure for a constitutionally mandated nine-member board for Los Angeles County. Polanco’s bill, which would put the matter before voters statewide as a constitutional amendment, calls for a nine-member board for any county with more than 5 million residents, a description that fits only Los Angeles. The measure has passed the state Senate and one Assembly committee.

Polanco calls it a vote for better representation. His critics call it a vote for Polanco’s membership on a bigger county board once term limits force him from the Senate in 2002.

Polanco has insisted all along that his legislation is designed to force the supervisors’ hand, and aides said the senator will hold up the bill in committee if the supervisors do what Knabe has proposed. That’s good if it’s true. This is clearly a matter for Los Angeles County voters to decide. There is no way to justify out-of-county voters imposing their will on Los Angeles County’s system of governance.

As it stands now, the five supervisors represent about 2 million residents each. A larger board is essential to improved representation. The big challenge that lies ahead is in persuading the voters that it’s to their advantage to have more county supervisors. It is--but making the case will mean that county officials must ensure that a larger board will bring about a more responsive county government, not just a more expensive one.