LA Charter Reform Commission votes to disclose private talks

The Los Angeles Charter Reform Commission this week adopted new transparency rules requiring commissioners to publicly disclose private communications with elected officials and their staff—a move supporters say is aimed at shoring up public trust as the panel moves toward an early April deadline to reshape the city’s governing charter.

The policy, approved unanimously at the commission’s Wednesday meeting, requires commissioners to disclose ex parte communications, or off-record discussions with elected officials or their staff about matters pending before the commission. The disclosure requirement took effect immediately on Jan. 21.

Under the new rules, commissioners must disclose any such communications at the next commission meeting following the interaction, including the date and time, form, duration, participants and a summary of the charter reform topics discussed. Any off-the-record conversations that occur during a public meeting must be disclosed before adjournment. Commission staff are also directed to maintain a public log of disclosures on the commission’s website.

The vote marks the commission’s first formal step to address growing concerns that behind-the-scenes conversations could influence charter reform recommendations outside public view. But while commissioners agreed on the need to disclose their own communications, they stopped short of extending the same requirement to commission staff, postponing a separate proposal that would have broadened the rule’s reach.

Commissioner Carla Fuentes, who introduced the motions, said the disclosure framework was necessary to protect the integrity of the commission’s work and ensure transparency at a moment when public confidence is critical.

“If the public is going to trust the outcomes of our charter reform process, it has to be transparent and credible,” Fuentes said during the meeting. “To me, this is about creating guard rails that match the magnitude of what we’re doing here by strengthening accountability and ensuring that the public record reflects the conversations that may influence our deliberations.”

She noted that the commission’s action would take effect sooner than a similar ordinance approved by the City Council earlier in the week, which still requires additional procedural steps before implementation.

The City Council ordinance, introduced by Councilmembers Monica Rodriguez and Imelda Padilla and approved on Jan. 20, similarly requires Charter Reform Commission members to disclose ex parte communications with elected officials and their staff. However, it is not expected to take effect for at least several weeks, following a second reading and other required procedural steps. The ordinance also does not extend disclosure requirements to commission staff.

In a follow-up email to this publication Friday, Fuentes said the commission could not afford to wait for the City Council’s ordinance to take effect, citing the panel’s limited lifespan and the April 2 deadline to submit their recommendations to the City Council.

“With each meeting, we’re closer to that deadline and transparency needs to be in place now for the public to have any confidence in the remainder of our work,” she wrote.

While commissioners ultimately approved disclosure rules for themselves, divisions emerged over whether the requirement should also apply to commission staff.

Commission Chair Raymond Meza said he supported commissioner disclosure but raised concerns that extending the rule to staff could sweep in routine or procedural communications.

“It is not uncommon for an elected official’s staff person to call one of our staff and say, ‘Hey, I heard a discussion that’s been taking place in the commission — did this commissioner really mean that,’” Meza said, adding that such exchanges could trigger disclosure even when no policy advocacy was involved.

With only seven of the commission’s 12 members present Wednesday, any dissenting vote would have been enough to block the motion. Meza said he would vote against the staff disclosure provision under those circumstances, prompting Fuentes to agree to separate the two proposals and bring the staff issue back at a future meeting when more commissioners are present.

Transparency advocates welcomed the commission’s action but said gaps remain—particularly around the decision to delay staff disclosure.

Chris Carson, chair of the League of Women Voters of Greater Los Angeles’ Government Reform Committee, speaking in a personal capacity and not on behalf of the League, said Friday that the new rules still leave significant gray areas.

She pointed to the difficulty of distinguishing between “procedural” and substantive conversations, noting that routine check-ins or requests for clarification can easily slide into discussions that influence decision-making.

“It just raises a lot of questions about what you are defining as procedural,” she said. “And when does an inquiry about what is going to happen morph into something else.”

While the new rule requires commissioners to publicly disclose off-the-record communications, enforcement relies largely on self-reporting and internal commission oversight. The policy does not include an independent enforcement mechanism, and violations would not invalidate votes or recommendations already made by the commission. However, commissioners who fail to comply could face censure or a recommendation for removal by their appointing authority.

Still, Carson said disclosure requirements can meaningfully change behavior, even when they rely on voluntary reporting, by making secrecy riskier than transparency.

Drawing on her experience helping draft California’s independent redistricting reforms, she said the state’s citizens redistricting commission adopted a strict ex parte ban — prohibiting private communications altogether — and publicly disclosing any attempted contacts.

“The cleanest and most transparent way to go is to just have a ban on ex parte communication from everybody,” Carson said. “That way, the commissioners know maybe they’re not being gamed. The public knows that the commissioners are not being gamed. And it works.”

Created in 2024 following a series of City Hall scandals, the Charter Reform Commission is tasked with reviewing Los Angeles’ charter, often described as the city’s constitution, and recommending changes to the City Council. If approved by the Council, some proposals could go before voters as early as November.