Los Angeles County wants to fight corruption. Is it worth $21 million?

As local governments lurch from one corruption scandal to another, the city and county of Los Angeles have moved to crack down on unethical behavior by public officials this election season.

The city wants to strengthen its nearly 35-year-old ethics commission with Amendment to the ER Charterwhich would give the supervisor a minimum annual budget of $7 million.

Meanwhile, the county wants to create its first ethics commission with Measure G.

The county ethics commission and ethics compliance office will not have a set budget. But according to an Oct. 24 county analysis reviewed by The Times, Measure G’s ethics reforms could cost as much as $21.9 million a year, with most of the cost coming from employee salaries and benefits.

If voters approve Measure G on Nov. 5, a task force will be created to determine the shape of the ethics commission — such as how many members it should have.

The cost estimates shocked both supporters and opponents.

“This is so absurd,” said Rob Quan, an organizer with Unrig LA who advocates for measures to root out corruption in both the city and county. “I’m puzzled by this.”

“We’re not even on the right track,” said Quan, who previously told county leaders he believed the ethics reforms in Measure G were “half-baked.”

“If the city can do it for seven million, why would it cost so much more than the county?” said political science professor Fernando Guerra, director of the Center for the Study of Los Angeles at Loyola Marymount University.

But Guerra, who co-authored the argument for Measure G, said he still believes the ethics reform package is a no-brainer for a district with a $49 billion budget.

“Even if it’s that amount, it’s very cheap for what you get,” Guerra added. “It’s a drop in the bucket.”

The five county supervisors are divided on Measure G, which, in addition to creating an ethics commission, would nearly double the size of the Board of Supervisors and lead to the election of an executive director who would serve as a quasi-mayor.

Supervisors Hilda Solis, Janice Hahn and Lindsey Horvath pushed for the measure, arguing it would make the district more responsive to its 10 million voters. Principals Katherine Barger and Holly Mitchell said that was a mistake because the price was too vague.

However, all said they could support the idea of ​​​​creating an ethics commission. Last month, the council voted unanimously to ask county lawyers to analyze how much it would cost to implement ethics reforms — regardless of whether Measure G passes.

That preliminary report, released last week, puts annual costs between $16.8 million with 73 employees and $21.9 million with 93 employees.

“Wow, what a big staff,” said David Tristan, head of the city’s Ethics Commission, which has a $6.3 million budget and 45 employees. “I wish I had a budget like that.”

About 13% of annual costs will go toward services and supplies, and the rest will go toward staffing costs, according to the district’s report.

The report does not indicate the costs of creating the commission. The auditor’s office previously said the one-time cost of implementing all Measure G proposals, including expanding the size of the board, would be about $8 million.

The Yes on Measure G campaign criticized the county’s report as rushed and simplistic, “designed to dissuade voters before important elections.”

“Measure G is historic, and it’s no secret that special interests and longtime bureaucrats are afraid of real accountability and reform,” said campaign chairman Morgan Miller.

Most executives said they still want to move forward.

“The cost estimates presented in this report seem high, and I wonder how they arrived at that figure,” Khan said. “But we can’t afford not to.”

Barger and Mitchell, who opposed Measure G, also said they saw a need for an ethics commission, although Barger called the range of costs “relative to our district’s financial forecast” and Mitchell said she would look for places where contributions could be made “economically.” effective adjustments.” “

For those already skeptical that the commission could do much to root out corruption, the high cost was further evidence that it was a bad idea.

“What can they cut? Firemen? Child welfare workers? Sheriff’s budget? I don’t see them proposing to cut their salaries,” said former Los Angeles City Council member Ruth Galanter. “If they have that much money sitting in the county budget, they should all be fired for crying out loud.”

Galanter, who held the post from 1987 to 2003, fiercely opposed the city’s ethics commission when it was created in 1990, convinced it would do little to curb corruption.

Following the corruption convictions of two former city council members, a former deputy mayor and a former city commissioner, Galanter said her fears were confirmed. She suspects the same will happen with the county’s attempt.

“What an incredible waste of time and money on these ethics issues,” Galanter said. “It doesn’t produce more ethical elected officials. What’s the point of this?

If Measure G The resolution would require the district to create an independent ethics commission and an ethics compliance office by 2026. The commission will be responsible for investigating misconduct by county employees and updating county rules regarding conflicts of interest and lobbying, among other duties. The committee will be supported by an Ethics Compliance Office, headed by an Ethics Compliance Officer.

Language on the ballot prohibits the county from raising taxes to pay for the changes.

Horwath, who spearheaded the measure, said there is enough money in the county’s budget to pay for the reforms because the county can bring in employees who already do similar ethics-related work in the executive office, recorder-recorder and auditor’s office. office.

“Nothing is more important than anti-corruption measures,” she said. “The staff and funding already exist under our current form of government.”

Sean McMorris, who specializes in ethics and accountability at the advocacy group Common Cause California, said the price tag doesn’t bother him. Establishing a strong ethics commission is expensive, he said, so only large cities typically create them.

He’s more concerned about what form the commission will take. Many details regarding the ethics commission will have to be worked out after voters have already approved the measure, he said.

“It’s like, let’s wait and see,” he said. “It makes me nervous.”