Nithya Raman - LA City Council District 4
Website / Platform
BACKGROUND & PERSPECTIVE
1. Experience: Please explain your past work on addressing corruption and advancing a more representative government.
Answer: I ran for office with a strict adherence to 100% clean money campaigning – we did not accept any corporate dollars or any money from developers, oil and gas interests, or police unions. We also held it as a priority to inform as many people as possible about how LA’s local government operates. Realizing that many Angelenos had never been made aware of even the existence of the City Council, let alone its immense power, we centered public education in all of our campaign events and communications.
Since being sworn into office, I’ve continued to hold expanding access to local government and reforming its practices as a core value. My office and I have led the efforts to create an independent redistricting commission, reduce the size of City Council districts, and reduce Councilmember discretion over land use – these, to me, are the most urgent priorities for addressing corruption and improving representation in LA right now. I also wrote the motion to establish the Ad Hoc Governance Reform Committee and served as its Vice Chair, helping move independent redistricting onto the ballot.
To allow more Angelenos to participate in governance, my office wrote and passed the motion to require live Spanish interpretation at all committee meetings, not just meetings of the full Council. We also brought forward meaningful changes to the Municipal Lobbying Ordinance, and have engaged a wide variety of advocates in working to advance these reforms. I’ve also passed legislation to explore the implementation of democracy vouchers in campaign financing, with the goal of further expanding participation in our electoral process.
Finally, I’ve continued to prioritize public education in my communications, both in my role as a Councilmember and in my personal capacity. Strong governance reform requires immense public will, and that will cannot be generated without widespread and intensive public engagement. To that end, I try to share as much about how our local government works as I can.
2. Priorities: Councilmembers have many issues on their plate, and limited political capital. List your top three policy priorities for addressing corruption or advancing government reform that you intend to lead on?
Answer:
1. Reducing Councilmember discretion over land use. I strongly believe that a Councilmember’s role in land use should be to approve a set of regularly-updated Community Plans to which developers then must adhere – not to exercise discretion over individual planning decisions. The level of deference currently offered to Councilmembers has led to flagrant corruption, slow-walked housing production, made housing more expensive, and allowed political spending to hold a powerful influence over every aspect of our built environment. Better resourcing the Planning Department, creating a hard and fast schedule for updating Community Plans, and establishing a more limited set of criteria by which Councilmembers can overrule the decisions of the Planning Commission would go a long way toward creating an entirely new and healthier culture in City Hall.
2. Reducing the size of City Council districts. Next year will mark the 100-year anniversary of the last time Los Angeles adjusted the number of seats on its City Council. Our reluctance to increase the number of seats has brought us the largest constituencies in the country, less governable districts, an elected body less representative of LA’s population, and a very unhealthy consolidation of power. I supported placing an increase to the number of seats on the Council on the November ballot in tandem with independent redistricting, but failing that I will continue to advocate for this reform as it is considered by a charter commission and ultimately by the voters.
3. Establishing a fully independent redistricting commission. I’m proud that almost two years after I co-presented a motion to do so with Councilmember Krekorian in late 2021, a ballot measure to create an independent redistricting commission was finally passed through the full Council a few months ago and will go before voters on the November ballot. The work of advocacy is not done, however – making sure voters understand the need for such a commission is imperative, particularly if special interests who have influenced redistricting in the past decide to put money behind a campaign opposing the ballot measure.
3. Fundraising: City candidates are prohibited from accepting direct contributions from city lobbyists, restricted developers, and certain contractors/contract applicants. Beyond the restrictions covered by city law, are there any industries or interest groups from which you are declining contributions? Any additional efforts you are making to run a “clean money” campaign?
Answer: As in 2020, our campaign is again refusing all corporate money and only accepting donations from individuals. We also continue to not accept donations from real estate developers, oil and gas interests, or police unions. Our campaign team looks at all donations individually to help us achieve these standards, and if reelected I’d be the only incumbent that I’m aware of to get a second term while doing so.
OPEN POLICY QUESTIONS
4. Council Size: What is your perspective on potentially expanding the membership of the LA City Council? What Council size will you advocate for? (If you do not have a specific number in mind, you are welcome to provide a range. You are also welcome to suggest ideas other than single member Council districts, like multi-member districts or having a combination of district & regional representation on the Council)
Answer: I strongly support expanding the size of the Council and have advocated for this change since my 2020 campaign. I’ve asked for report-backs to explore expansion to up to 31 seats, but I would be comfortable with an increase to any odd number between 23 and 31 seats. I’m certainly willing to learn more about multi-member districts and at-large representation, but I’m not prepared to throw my support behind either right now.
5. Public Financing: Five years ago the City of LA expanded its public matching funds program. City Council will soon receive a report on a number of options for overhauling our public financing system. What is your vision for the future of public financing of elections in the City of LA? (Please specify if you would like to build upon the current program, move in a different direction with democracy vouchers, or utilize one of the hybrid approaches detailed in the motion to achieve full public financing).
Answer: I wrote and advocated for the passage of the motion to explore democracy vouchers, and I’m excited to read the report-back. I’ve also been pleased to see our matching funds program invite a wider range of candidates to run for office and put together complete and well-resourced campaigns. While I’ll draw from the findings of the report-back to inform my assessment, a combination of democracy vouchers and matching funds feels like a healthy approach to public financing – providing candidates with an incentive to do ample community engagement while enabling new participants in local elections and limiting the influence of the most deep-pocketed donor networks. It’s an unfortunate reality of the post-Citizens United landscape that, no matter how close we get to fully publicly-financed elections, outside spending will be able to dominate campaign fundraising barring changes to federal election law. Our only weapon against this spending is public education campaigns that help voters distinguish independent expenditures from those put out by candidates themselves.
6. Council Rules & Voting: Council Rules permit a member to be counted as present, even while off the council floor. In fact, so long as the audio of the meeting is running, a member may meet privately with lobbyists in rooms behind council chambers during a meeting. Unless a member is at their desk and presses a button, they are automatically registered as an affirmative vote on items being considered. What are your thoughts on these Council Rules? What do you think is the right approach?
Answer: I broadly support Councilmembers having to return to their desks to vote, although the prospect of increasing the number of seats on the Council and waiting for members to wander back to their desks one by one does admittedly give me some pause. I also think that leaving chambers for longer than a few minutes should be considered an absence for the purposes of maintaining quorum.
“YES / NO / DEPENDS” POLICY QUESTIONS
(If you would like to provide additional context you are welcome to provide a max of 1 sentence w/ more info on your answer)
7. Charter Commission Powers: The City Council is currently considering the potential creation of a charter commission to undertake the first comprehensive review of our charter in nearly a quarter century. The proposal recently floated at committee would not grant any authority to this commission, and it would merely be advisory. Some cities, like Portland, give their charter review commission the power, if necessary, to place a measure on the ballot if it secures the support of 15 out of 20 commissioners. In the 90s, Council was forced to negotiate with the unified charter commission in good faith because the elected commission retained the power to put a measure on the ballot.
Would you support giving the charter commission the power to place a measure on the ballot, if necessary, so long as it receives the support of 75% of the commission?
● Yes/No/Depends: Yes
● Additional context:
8. 2024 Charter Ethics Reform: The City Council has had varying levels of discussions about enhancing the independence and authority of the City Ethics Commission. It is currently unclear if council will be undertaking the work necessary to refine those proposals and place them on the November 2024 ballot, or if these proposals will be sent to the previously mentioned charter commission for further consideration and placement on the 2026 ballot.
Do you believe these Charter Ethics Reforms should be on the November 2024 Ballot?
● Yes/No/Depends: Yes
● Additional context:
9. Ballot Qualification: LA City Council candidates are required to secure at least 500 valid in-district signatures to appear on the ballot, significantly more than required by most other jurisdictions.
Would you support cutting this threshold in half to 250 valid in-district signatures?
● Yes/No/Depends: Depends
● Additional context: When combined with limitations on campaign spending and a shift toward publicly-financed elections, I think signature requirements can be a useful way to limit the influence of outside money – it’s one of the few arenas in which independent committees are not allowed to bear influence.
10. Remote Comment: When LA City Council resumed in-person committee meetings last year, they ended remote public comment at committees.
Will you advocate for the restoration of remote public comment at committees?
● Yes/No/Depends: Yes
● Additional context: