Serena Oberstein - LA City Council District 12
BACKGROUND & PERSPECTIVE
1. Experience: Please explain your past work on addressing corruption and advancing a more representative government.
Answer: I served as President and Vice President of the LA City Ethics Commission, where we sought to create policies that made Los Angeles more transparent, root out corruption and hold elected officials and others in positions of power accountable. Throughout my time as an Ethics Commissioner, I worked on a single premise: How do we restore confidence in a system stained with corruption? I regularly worked with Commission staff and fellow commissioners to create policies and mechanisms the city could take to create more transparency, increase accountability and mete out penalties.
When I served, the Ethics Department lacked the capability to fully monitor its expansive portfolio, given their staffing limitations and outdated governance policies. That issue has only been exacerbated. Angelenos deserve real reform. We shouldn’t have to wait for another FBI probe to restore faith in our democracy. It’s not enough to talk about what’s broken. We need bold action that leads to real solutions, and we need it now. That can start with a more empowered Ethics Department.
I also support increasing the size of the city council and an independent redistricting commission to ensure a more representative, accountable, and reliable government.
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: My top three priorities for addressing corruption and advancing reform include, 1) Being as transparent and accountable as possible within my own office and staff, understanding that serving the City is a privilege, not a right; 2) Empowering the ethics department so it can achieve the kind of change and independence Angelenos deserve; 3) Taking a hard look at city departments to address systemic issues that have led to much of the corruption we’ve seen by our City Council.
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: In addition to those interests stated above, I am not taking money from the oil and gas industry, gun manufacturers and other gun related interests.
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: The City Council needs to increase in size to ensure that we are meeting the needs of all constituents. We’ve had the same number of City Council members since 1925, when the population of L.A. was one quarter of what it is today. But any plan to grow the City Council needs to be paired both with an eye toward keeping neighborhoods within Council districts and a plan on how we can make sure City departments and any extra Council staff can keep pace with that growth. 311 service requests and the work done by City departments need to keep up with any increase in staffing among additional Council District offices. Right now, 15 councilmembers for 4 million Angelenos, or roughly 250,000 residents per one councilmember, is simply too small a governing body that must grow in size to adequately meet the needs of all constituents.
In order for us to truly meet the needs of Angelenos, we must look at best practices across the country to identify how cities have expanded their councils in recent history. That could be paired with some level of Charter reform, something that last occurred in the City decades ago. This is needed to evaluate what we’re doing, how we’re doing, and what new reforms and changes are needed.
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 applaud the efforts of Councilmember Bonin to expand the public matching funds program. And yet, as a current candidate, I am seeing firsthand how we still have so much more work to do to ensure we’re leveling the playing field and giving opportunity to political outsiders who don’t have relationships or connections to wealthy donors. I support a system in which we work to empower more Angelenos to have a seat at the table. As a candidate who does not come from wealth and is not supported by nearly $1 million in Independent Expenditures, I know firsthand how the current system is set up to protect incumbents and is overly cumbersome for first time candidates. The current campaign finance structure seems set up to deter new ideas and new candidates who represent diverse opinions and may come from various socio economic backgrounds.
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 think Councilmembers shouldn’t be counted as present - or have their vote registered - unless they are actually present and physically in the meeting and voting. The issues our council deals with have major and real impacts on the lives of every Angeleno and that responsibility must be taken seriously. The rules as they are now don’t support the seriousness of the role.
“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:Yes
● Additional context: While I was proud to submit more than 500 valid in-district signatures that displayed my campaign’s grassroots power, the number the City requires is just too high. Those running for state or federal offices need to submit far fewer valid signatures and forcing candidates to garner 500 valid signatures can have a chilling effect when running against incumbents who often rely on their staff to volunteer their time to gather signatures.
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: If one wants to participate in local democracy, they should not be forced to travel hours to City Hall for two minutes of public comment. We need to encourage more, not fewer, people to engage with our City Council.