As Los Angeles considers how to reform its City Charter, members of the Board of Public Works made their pitch this past weekend to the Charter Commission Planning and Infrastructure Committee, in a presentation titled “Strengthening Infrastructure Governance.” Their proposal supports implementation of a five-year Capital Infrastructure Program — a much-needed step that Investing in Place has long called for. But their central recommendation, disappointingly, is to keep the current Board structure and simply expand its authority, which misses the mark.
They point to their frequent meetings (150 per year), their volume of contract approvals (85 percent of the City’s construction contracts), and their oversight of more than $1 billion in annual investment. But they fail to mention one critical thing: there is still no Chief of Public Works, no clear line of accountability, and no outcomes-driven leadership structure in place.
Let’s be honest: If you’re meeting more than 150 times per year, and you still can’t fix the sidewalks, something isn’t working. And it’s likely structural: This is not about the current people who sit on the Board; they inherited a decades-old, broken system. They meet so often because the City lacks a long-term infrastructure budget and program. Without a Capital Infrastructure Program, every decision becomes a one-off approval. Every contract, every repair, every permit moves in isolation. A CIP would radically improve efficiency, coordination, and transparency — and reduce the need for this kind of fragmented, reactive governance.
Right now:
- More than 50,000 sidewalk repair requests are pending.
- It takes 10 years to install an access ramp.
- Streetlight repairs can take up to a year.
- 200,000 tree wells sit empty during record heat waves.
Yet, the Board is asking us to double down on the very system that allowed this backlog to grow unchecked. Where is the accountability? Where is the outcome-focused plan?
- Who speaks for the needs of neighborhoods?
- Who speaks for improving City staff work plans and project delivery?
- Who holds bureau managers accountable today?
- How will keeping the same structure result in different outcomes?
It’s also important to name this: A group can be good at one thing and not good at another. Efficiency in processing contracts doesn’t make you a strategic leader. Those are different roles. And a well-functioning City needs both. Contract administration and executive management are not interchangeable. Let’s stop treating this like an either/or decision. What Los Angeles needs is both clear-eyed oversight and strong, accountable leadership that is focused on results.
At the same time, this conversation about reforming the Board of Public Works has come up before. The two Charter Reform Commissions from 1997 to 1999 considered changing how the Department of Public Works is governed. Some proposed making the Board a part-time advisory body, like other commissions, and appointing a single general manager. In the end, the Board kept its executive authority. A Director of Public Works was created, but only with limited administrative duties. The idea of real transformation was raised and quickly dismissed by those in power. Are we going to let that happen again? Or are we ready to consider every idea and commit to structural reform rooted in what neighborhoods actually need: reliable services, welcoming public spaces, and clear, accountable leadership?
This is what Investing in Place recommends:
- Amend the City Charter to establish a Chief of Public Works — a qualified, centralized executive responsible for managing the Capital Infrastructure Program and coordinating across departments. This role should not be political or ceremonial. It should be accountable, professional, and empowered to lead.
- As for the Board of Public Works, there is room for thoughtful evolution. Rather than maintaining its current executive structure, the City could reimagine the Board as a governance board — similar to the boards that oversee the Port of LA, the Department of Water and Power, or the Airports Department (LAWA). These boards provide oversight, set policy direction, and ensure public transparency, but they do not manage day-to-day operations.
This isn’t about personalities. It’s about structure. It’s about whether LA can deliver a sidewalk fix in less than a decade. It’s about whether our public realm reflects care or neglect. It’s about whether our governance systems are built for service or for politically appointed positions with limited oversight.
If we want a City that works — for everyone — then we need leadership that is built to deliver.
