The Los Angeles Board of Public Works, which has managed the city’s streets, sidewalks, and sewer systems since 1905, faces an uncertain future as voters prepare to weigh Measure LA in the upcoming election. The charter amendment includes several reforms, but its most debated provision would grant the City Council the authority to restructure or dissolve the five-member board.
Supporters of Measure LA argue that giving the council more control could lead to more efficient infrastructure repairs and improved city services. They emphasize that disbanding the board would not occur automatically; rather, it would require a two-thirds vote by the 15-member City Council. Proponents contend the measure could enhance accountability by consolidating leadership, enabling a single person to oversee public works.
Opponents, meanwhile, caution that eliminating the board risks concentrating power in a single individual, which could reduce transparency and increase opportunities for corruption. Some cite incidents like the 2022 federal sentencing of San Francisco’s former public works director, convicted in a bribery scheme, as cautionary examples. Councilmember Monica Rodriguez, a former board member, expressed concerns that removing the five-member board “gives way to more corruption than transparency.”
The Board of Public Works currently operates as a five-member panel appointed by the mayor, overseeing more than 5,500 city employees who manage sanitation, street lighting, engineering, graffiti removal, and related functions. Board members generally earn just under $200,000 annually and meet multiple times a week to review contracts, approve infrastructure projects, and address public concerns. Meetings include detailed discussions of bids and project budget adjustments, indicating a hands-on approach to managing city infrastructure.
Former board members highlight the advantages of the existing structure, saying it disburses authority and facilitates ongoing interaction with elected officials, the private sector, and the public. Valerie Lynne Shaw, who served on the board for 17 years, described it as a vital “coordinating mechanism” that helps resolve community issues. Another former member noted that their role extended beyond board meetings to attending neighborhood councils, homeowners associations, and other public forums to maintain engagement.
Some city council members, including Measure LA backers Katy Yaroslavsky and Bob Blumenfield, argue the current system is fragmented and lacks clear accountability. Yaroslavsky pointed to difficulties obtaining information on local infrastructure projects, such as a long-delayed intersection repair in her district. She contrasted the city’s model with Los Angeles County’s single Director of Public Works, suggesting that a streamlined leadership approach could improve coordination. Blumenfield noted that collaboration among multiple bureaus has sometimes created a “silo effect” that hinders progress.
During a council discussion in June, Board President Marqueece Harris-Dawson acknowledged the complexity of managing projects across bureaus, calling the process “bounced around” without a single point of resolution. Rodriguez countered that consolidating authority would not solve coordination issues without addressing bureau resources and staffing.
No campaign expenditures have been reported in support or opposition to Measure LA, reflecting a relatively low-profile but sharply divided debate. Critics argue that the measure’s inclusion of multiple governance changes—including adopting a two-year budget cycle and establishing a capital infrastructure plan—obscures its most significant element: the potential elimination of a 120-year-old public oversight board. Opponents say such a consequential change should be presented separately for clearer public scrutiny.
Supporters acknowledge the concern but maintain that Measure LA addresses a broad range of governance improvements necessary for the city’s future. Passage of the measure would only enable the City Council to consider structural changes in the future, requiring a supermajority and potential mayoral approvals. Blumenfield described the vote as “a question worth asking” about improving efficiency and accountability in a sprawling municipal system.