The LA City Council voted 12-0 late last month to put a measure on the Nov. 3 ballot that could allow members to reduce council meetings to once per week.

The members of the council are among the highest-paid local legislators in America, with base salaries starting around $245,000. Those in leadership roles earn even more, plus lavish staffs and perks.

“Let the voters decide,” they say. Gut the City Charter’s requirement for at least three regular full council meeting days per week, and allow the council the option to meet as little as one day a week.

This is classic behavior from socialists and bureaucrats who love more pay for less work. 

While ordinary Angelenos struggle with sky-high costs, crime and government failure, these well-compensated officials want voters to bless a lighter public schedule so they can supposedly be “more efficient” in their districts or at home doing dishes. The hypocrisy is staggering.

LA is reeling from multiple self-inflicted disasters under years of progressive governance, yet the council’s priority is making their own jobs easier.

The Palisades Fire destroyed nearly 7,000 structures, killed a dozen people and displaced thousands. Eighteen months later, recovery remains painfully slow. 

Survivors face endless bureaucratic hurdles, with permitting backlogs delaying rebuilding despite federal interventions (like Small Business Administration guidance to bypass local red tape) and state streamlining attempts. 

Victims are still waiting while the city’s layers of approvals paralyze progress.

What should be straightforward rebuilding or basic operations gets buried in committees, reviews and approvals that no one is incentivized to hurry along. 

Federal officials have explicitly called out local inaction and permitting failures as barriers to recovery using billions in disaster aid.

There are other problems that need the City Council’s urgent attention.

On homelessness, tens of thousands remain unhoused in Los Angeles County (around 72,000 in recent counts) and the city proper (around 43,700), even with modest reported declines. Visible encampments, public disorder and human suffering persist as a daily reality.

Download The California Post App, follow us on social, and subscribe to our newsletters

On drug dealing, areas like MacArthur Park have operated as notorious open-air markets for fentanyl, methamphetamine and other narcotics, often tied to gangs and unhoused users. 

Recent federal takedowns highlight the scale of the problem, but the underlying failures of local law enforcement and policy under current leadership remain glaring.

Council meetings are supposed to be the public arena where billion-dollar budgets, police funding, homelessness programs, housing projects and major developments are debated and decided, with direct resident input. Reducing the minimum frequency of these sessions erodes accountability precisely when government responsiveness is most needed.

Proponents (including some council members) claim the proposed changes will “modernize” the charter, following the example of the the LA County Board of Supervisors (which meets once weekly), or the New York City and Chicago city councils (less frequent full sessions), and that committees, plus longer meetings, will handle the workload without reducing output.

They say the proposed change frees members for “district work,” and could even improve public access via evening sessions.

These arguments collapse under scrutiny. 

The council already enjoys high pay, substantial staff budgets (often hundreds of thousands per office for operations and personnel) and significant discretion. 

If they’re “working all the time,” as one member claimed, why demand fewer mandated public sessions? 

Recent examples of canceled or sparse committee meetings (including on homelessness and housing) show the pattern of avoidance.

This isn’t about efficiency, it’s about convenience for insiders who benefit from expansive government while delivering poor results on the basics.

Across many political systems, elected officials have the power (or influence) to set their own compensation, perks and operating rules. In the US, this is common at federal, state and local levels, often leading to criticism of self-enrichment. 

Better systems use independent commissions to depoliticize pay. 

Here, the council members aren’t directly voting themselves a raise, but they are seeking to reduce a core public obligation while crises mount and their compensation remains eye-poppingly generous.

The fact that this requires voter approval on the ballot is a minor safeguard. The very act of proposing it reeks of entitlement. 

While residents deal with the aftermath of wildfires, suffocating bureaucracy, rampant homelessness and open drug dealing, the council prioritizes making its schedule more “restful.”

In a city plagued by government-created or exacerbated problems, the last thing residents need is elected officials angling for fewer required days on the job. 

Reckless bureaucrats excel at expanding their own power, pay and insulation from consequences while results lag. 

Voters should see this for what it is: another example of insiders looking out for themselves first. The public deserves more accountability, not less.

Richie Greenberg is a political commentator based in San Francisco.