Election 2026 · City of Los Angeles
Charter Amendment EE: Ethics, elections and governance
Charter Amendment EE would raise penalties for campaign finance violations, bar Ethics Commissioners from running for City or LAUSD office for five years after they leave, and make it harder to qualify a referendum. It would also give the Police Inspector General and the Fire Department's Independent Assessor more independence from their commissions, and let the City Council meet weekly instead of three days a week.
Summary by CityHallPass, not the official text or legal advice. The official text controls: City Clerk's voter information pamphlet.
At a glance
| Charter Amendment EE | |
|---|---|
| Charter sections changed | 24 amended: 103, 242, 245, 461, 470, 514, 523, 573, 700 and 900-914 |
| Council meetings | At least weekly, down from at least three days a week |
| Referendum signatures | 15% of last mayoral vote, up from 10%. About 139,500 instead of 93,000 at 2022 turnout (our calculation) |
| Campaign finance civil penalty | Up to $15,000 or 3 times the amount, up from $2,000 per violation |
| Council vote to place it | 12-0 (Hutt, Price, Rodriguez absent), June 30, 2026 |
| Ballot arguments | For: McOsker, Yaroslavsky, Harris-Dawson, Hernandez, Andrades. Against: Rodriguez |
| Money raised | No committee for or against reported, as of Sept. 30, 2026 |
| Latest public poll | None found |
What does a yes vote on Charter Amendment EE mean?
The maximum civil penalty for a campaign finance violation rises from $2,000 to $15,000 or three times the amount involved, whichever is more. A referendum would need signatures from 15% of the votes cast in the last mayoral election, up from 10%. The Council would have to meet at least once a week instead of three days a week. The Police and Fire Commissions could no longer stop an Inspector General or Independent Assessor investigation or audit.
What does a no vote on Charter Amendment EE mean?
Current penalties, the 10% referendum signature requirement and the three-day-a-week Council meeting rule stay. The Police and Fire Commissions keep their power to stop an Inspector General or Independent Assessor investigation.
What would Charter Amendment EE cost?
The City Administrative Officer says fewer Council meetings could save General Fund money on translation and captioning. The changes for the Inspector General and Independent Assessor could require more investigators or auditors, at a cost the CAO says cannot be determined yet. The CAO expects no financial impact from the other changes.
The details
| Official title | City Ethics, Elections, and Governance |
|---|---|
| Type | Charter amendment placed on the ballot by the City Council |
| Votes needed to pass | Simple majority (more than 50% yes) |
| Council file | 26-1100-S13 |
The question on your ballot
Shall the City Charter be amended to: increase the authority of the Police Department Inspector General and Fire Department Independent Assessor; prohibit Ethics Commissioners from running for certain elected offices for five years; increase penalties for campaign finance violations; require City Council to meet at least weekly rather than the currently required three days per week; increase referendum petition signature requirements; and make other changes regarding ethics, elections and governance?
What would change
| Today | If EE passes | |
|---|---|---|
| Council meetings | Regular meetings “at least three days each week” | Regular meetings “at least weekly,” plus special meetings as needed (Sec. 242(a)) |
| Time for the Council to review commission actions | Actions become final after five Council meeting days unless the Council takes them up (ten meeting days for removal of the Police Chief) | 15 calendar days (21 for removal of the Police Chief) “during which the Council has convened in regular session” (Sec. 245) |
| Referendum petitions | Signatures equal to 10% of the votes cast for Mayor at the last election a Mayor was chosen | 15%, the same as for initiatives (Sec. 461(a); impartial summary) |
| Civil penalty for campaign finance violations, when no specific penalty applies | Up to $2,000 per violation | Up to $15,000 (adjusted for inflation) or three times the amount improperly reported, contributed, spent, given or received, whichever is more (Sec. 470(o)(2)(A)) |
| Ethics Commission members and director running for office | Barred for two years after their term, only for offices the commission ruled on during their term | Barred from any City or LAUSD board office for five years after their last day of service. Applies only to those who leave on or after EE takes effect (Sec. 700(d)) |
| Police Inspector General | Can start investigations and audits, but the Police Commission can tell it by majority vote not to start or continue one | The Police Commission loses that power (Sec. 573(c)) |
| Fire Department Independent Assessor | Same limit from the Fire Commission | The Fire Commission loses that power (Sec. 523(c)) |
| Language access | Not in the Charter | The City must adopt ordinances and policies so its communications and programs are accessible “across the languages spoken by its residents” (Sec. 103) |
| Neighborhood Council membership | Open to “everyone who lives, works or owns property in the area” | Open to “all stakeholders, as defined by ordinance” (Sec. 906) |
What the signature change means in numbers. In the November 2022 mayoral election, Karen Bass and Rick Caruso received 929,974 votes combined (County election results). By our calculation, 10% of that is about 93,000 signatures and 15% is about 139,500. The base will change after the Nov. 3, 2026 mayoral election. A referendum asks voters to overturn an ordinance the Council has passed, and signatures must be gathered within 30 days of the ordinance’s publication (Sec. 461(a)).
Every Charter section that changes
From the pamphlet’s full text, where added words are underlined and deleted words are struck out (full text, pp. 50-57):
| Charter section | Subject | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 103 | Standards of service | Adds the language access requirement |
| 242(a) | Council conduct of business | Regular meetings “at least weekly” instead of three days a week |
| 245 | Council veto of board actions | Review period becomes 15 calendar days (21 for removing the Police Chief) |
| 461(a) | Referendum petitions | Signature requirement from 10% to 15% |
| 470(o)(2)(A) | Campaign finance civil penalties | $2,000 cap replaced by the greater of $15,000 (inflation-adjusted) or three times the amount |
| 514(b)(7) | Transfers of department powers | Police and Fire stay exempt “if” a transfer would alter their “primary purpose”; drops “or character” |
| 523(c) | Fire Independent Assessor | Removes the Fire Commission’s power to stop an audit or assessment |
| 573(c) | Police Inspector General | Removes the Police Commission’s power to stop an investigation or audit |
| 700(d) | Ethics Commission qualifications | Five-year post-service ban on running for City or LAUSD office |
| 900-914 | Neighborhood Councils | Stakeholders defined by ordinance; “board members” for “officers”; “civic” for “citizen” participation; retitles Secs. 904, 905 and 907 (“Early Warning System” becomes “Advance Notice and Opportunities for Input”); capitalization and “City Council” wording |
Source: pamphlet full text, summarized by CityHallPass. Section 10 of the measure limits the new Ethics Commission ban to people who leave on or after the effective date (full text).
How it got on the ballot
The City Council placed EE on the ballot. Most items came from the Charter Reform Commission. The commission’s report says the Council created it in June 2024 “in response to the City Hall leaked tape scandal.” Others came from Council members (Charter Reform Commission report, p. 20; City Attorney report R26-0380, pp. 5-6).
- June 17, 2026: The Council voted item by item. The ethics ban, penalty increase, Inspector General and Independent Assessor changes, language access, Neighborhood Council changes and the Sec. 514 wording each passed 15-0. The referendum change passed 12-3, with Heather Hutt, Adrin Nazarian and Nithya Raman voting no. The Council also voted 15-0 to remove the Council meeting requirement in Sec. 242(a) from the Charter entirely and move it to the Administrative Code (Rules committee recap of Council votes).
- June 29, 2026: Five groups wrote jointly to oppose removing Sec. 242(a): California Clean Money Campaign, California Common Cause, Fair Rep LA, League of Women Voters of Greater Los Angeles and Unrig LA. They asked the Council to keep a minimum in the Charter and suggested two meetings a week (coalition letter). The City Attorney also corrected the ballot question, removing a reference to LAUSD campaign rules that belong to Charter Amendment SC (City Attorney report R26-0386).
- June 30, 2026: Amendments by Tim McOsker and Katy Yaroslavsky replaced the repeal with “at least weekly” and changed the Sec. 245 review periods to calendar days (Amending Motion 93B; Amending Motion 93A). The Council then adopted the measure 12-0, with Hutt, Curren Price and Monica Rodriguez absent (Council action). Mayor Bass approved it July 10, and the election ordinance took effect July 15 (Ordinance 188983).
- Aug. 4, 2026: McOsker, Diego Andrades and Justi Sexton asked to write the argument for EE, and Rodriguez asked to write the argument against. McOsker and Rodriguez were designated, and the Rules committee approved 4-0 (City Clerk list of applicants; committee memo).
Other Charter changes the Council pulled. On June 30 the Council sent back to committee Charter changes on noncitizen voting and on Council authority over LAPD policy, the Mercury News reported (Mercury News). Both had been drafted as separate measures (City Attorney report R26-0380, pp. 8-9).
Related past measures. In November 2024 voters passed Charter Amendment ER, which gave the Ethics Commission a minimum budget and raised penalties for violations of City laws, with 75.41%. Charter Amendment HH, on governance, appointments and elections, passed with 81.30% (County election results). The CLA wrote that ER raised administrative penalties, and that EE would apply the same levels to civil penalties (CLA report, p. 65).
What each side says
In the City pamphlet. Ballot arguments are the authors’ opinions. No City agency checks them for accuracy (City pamphlet).
Argument for, signed by Councilmembers Tim McOsker, Katy Yaroslavsky, Marqueece Harris-Dawson and Eunisses Hernandez and Charter Reform Commissioner Diego Andrades (argument in favor):
- Oversight: EE gives “stronger independent oversight” of Police and Fire, raises campaign finance penalties and adds a “five-year cooling-off period” for Ethics Commissioners.
- Meetings: the three-day rule is “an unusual mandate that makes Los Angeles an outlier among major American cities” and takes time from district work. Weekly meetings allow “additional meetings as needed.”
Argument against, signed by Councilmember Monica Rodriguez (argument against):
- EE is “presented as an ethics reform measure, but buried within is a proposal to reduce Los Angeles City Council meetings from three times a week to once a week.”
- Fewer meetings mean fewer chances for public comment and “greater potential for important decisions to be shaped outside the public eye.”
- Council meetings in the San Fernando Valley, now “at most once a month,” would likely happen less often.
The supporters’ rebuttal says one weekly meeting makes participation “more predictable and certain” and calls the current rule “an antiquated, arbitrary, and wasteful practice” (rebuttal). No rebuttal to the argument in favor was printed.
Outside the pamphlet.
- Rodriguez told the New York Post that asking the public “to grant them less days of showing up for work for council meetings is tone deaf.” A McOsker spokesperson, Sophie Gilchrist, told the paper that “what this likely means is that we will have longer Council agendas, not fewer Council actions” and pointed to New York City and Chicago (New York Post).
- Yaroslavsky said at a Council meeting that fewer required meetings “would actually allow us to be more effective,” the New York Post reported (New York Post).
- The Central San Pedro Neighborhood Council said it “strongly opposes” the weekly meeting change (community impact statement, July 21, 2026).
Checking the main factual claims against official records.
| Claim | Who makes it | What official records show |
|---|---|---|
| EE cuts Council meetings from three a week to one | Rodriguez | EE sets a minimum of one regular meeting a week and allows more (Sec. 242(a)). How often the Council meets would be its choice. |
| The meeting change is “buried” | Rodriguez | The change is in the ballot question voters see (ballot question). The June 29 draft question had said only “allow the City Council to change its meeting schedule,” which the coalition letter called misleading; the final question names the weekly minimum (coalition letter). |
| Three required meeting days make LA an outlier | Yes argument | We did not check other cities’ charters. McOsker’s office cited New York City and Chicago (New York Post). |
| EE strengthens Police and Fire oversight | Yes argument | The commissions lose the power to halt an Inspector General or Independent Assessor inquiry (Secs. 523, 573). Both still report to their commissions. |
| Valley Council meetings happen at most once a month | Rodriguez | We did not find an official schedule of Valley meetings to check this. |
Who supports and opposes it
Supporters
- Signers of the argument in favor: Councilmembers Tim McOsker, Katy Yaroslavsky, Marqueece Harris-Dawson and Eunisses Hernandez, and Charter Reform Commissioner Diego Andrades. A signer’s title is for identification only (signers).
- Justi Sexton also asked to write the argument for (City Clerk list of applicants).
Opponents
- Councilmember Monica Rodriguez, author of the argument against (argument against).
- Central San Pedro Neighborhood Council, on the meeting change (community impact statement).
- The five-group coalition letter of June 29 opposed removing the meeting rule and proposed two meetings a week. It was written before the Council settled on one. We found no statement from those groups on the final measure as of Sept. 30, 2026 (coalition letter).
Editorial boards and columnists. The New York Post editorial board wrote that the Council “should withdraw this proposal” on meetings (New York Post editorial). Daily News columnist Susan Shelley recommended no, citing the referendum and meeting changes (Daily News, Sept. 29, 2026). We found no LA Times or Daily News editorial board position as of Sept. 30, 2026.
Parties and other groups. We found no published position from the Los Angeles County Democratic or Republican parties, the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor or the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce as of Sept. 30, 2026.
Money for and against
No committee has formed to support or oppose EE. The City Ethics Commission’s election totals show $0 raised, $0 spent and no independent spending for or against it (City Ethics election totals). The City’s list of campaign statements filed through the Sept. 19, 2026 reporting period includes no committee named for EE (City campaign statements filed). We checked both on Sept. 30, 2026.
Independent analysis
The City’s official analyses are the Chief Legislative Analyst’s impartial summary (City pamphlet) and the City Administrative Officer’s financial impact statement (City pamphlet).
- Meetings. The CLA called moving the meeting rule out of the Charter “a policy matter for the Council to consider” and made no recommendation (CLA report, p. 42). The final weekly minimum and the calendar-day review periods were added on June 30 and were not part of the CLA’s review (Amending Motions 93A and 93B).
- Referendum. The CLA noted the change is meant to create parity with the 15% requirement for initiatives (CLA report, p. 42).
- Ethics. The CLA recommended the five-year ban and the penalty change go to voters. The Council dropped a commission proposal that would have barred paying penalties with campaign funds (CLA report, pp. 60-61, 65-66; Council votes, item 18).
- Cost. The CAO says the Inspector General and Assessor changes “may require hiring new investigators, retaining external auditors, or expanding investigative staff,” with costs not yet known, and fewer meetings may save on translation and captioning (CAO statement).
- Timing. The CLA told the Council it lacked time for “in-depth analysis” of many proposals and that Charter changes could also go on 2028 ballots (CLA report, pp. 42-43).
If it passes
- Meetings. The Council sets its own schedule, with at least one regular meeting a week (Sec. 242(a)).
- Referendums. The 15% threshold applies once EE takes effect. The base is the vote for Mayor at the most recent mayoral election (Sec. 461(a)).
- Ethics Commission. The five-year ban covers members and directors who leave on or after the effective date (Sec. 10).
- Neighborhood Councils and language access. Both need new ordinances to define stakeholders and set language obligations (Secs. 103, 906).
- Legal challenges. We found no announced challenge. If one part is struck down, the rest stays in force (Sec. 12).
Key moments
No debate or forum focused on EE was found in news coverage or City records as of Sept. 30, 2026.
- Reform groups object to dropping the meeting rule (June 29, 2026) (coalition letter).
- Council settles on weekly meetings and places EE (June 30, 2026) (Council action).
- New York Post reports on the meeting change (July 12, 2026) (New York Post).
Polls
No public poll on EE was found as of Sept. 30, 2026.
Read the official text
- Ballot question and impartial summary (by the Chief Legislative Analyst)
- Financial impact statement (by the City Administrative Officer)
- Arguments for and against
- Full text of the measure
Official voter information in other languages: Español · Հայերեն · 中文 · فارسی · हिन्दी · 日本語 · ខ្មែរ · 한국어 · Русский · Tagalog · ไทย · Tiếng Việt