83
IV. Activities
simply create more meddling by the elected officials and politicize the workings
of government.
fiIn the short term, there will be a lot less conflict between the supervisors
and the CEO’s office,” said Raphael Sonenshein, executive director of the Pat
Brown Institute for Public Affairs at Cal State L.A. fiThe question is what’s
it going to do for the daily operations. . . They won’t know when they’re too
involved. They’ll think their involvement is just right. The other shoe to drop is
how will it affect everybody else’s ability to do their job?”
The results have been mixed. An assessment by a county advisory com-
mission in 2008 found that the stronger chief executive officer structure had
increased collaboration between departments, but had also slowed down work in
some cases by adding another layer of bureaucracy. The commission found that
it also had increased tensions between the supervisors and the top administrator.
Three years later, the board took back control of the probation department
operations.
fiEverybody meddled. We all meddled, one way or the other,” Molina said.
Yaroslavsky agreed that board members had continued to micromanage—
even going as far as having their aides ghostwrite recommendations that were
supposed to be coming from department heads. He added that some initiatives
were stalled because of power struggles between supervisors and the chief
executive.
Yaroslavsky is now advocating for an elected county executive, a proposal
that has not found support among the current board members.
fiOutside of the former Soviet Union, Los Angeles County is the only . . .