Avoiding layoffs is a nice goal, but shouldn't L.A.'s mayor first know how big a workforce the city needs?
Is Los Angeles city government too big or too small? Does it provide the right blend of services while protecting taxpayers? Are certain departments bloated and ripe for cuts while others are in line for expansion? Those are the fundamental questions city leaders must confront as they debate an extraordinarily challenging budget shortfall. Don't expect answers from Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.
Meeting with editors and reporters from The Times this week, the mayor was asked what seemed like an easy question for a chief executive who has been in office for nearly four years: Does Los Angeles today have the right size workforce, and should it grow or shrink going forward? "Truthful answer," Villaraigosa responded, "I don't know." Elaborating, he made some valid points - the Los Angeles Police Department may still need to be bigger, while some parts of the city government might be able to shrink - but it is telling that Los Angeles' mayor, who just was reelected to a second term, still has not assessed the government he heads and determined where it works and where it doesn't.
"I can't tell you that anybody's ever studied exactly how many employees we have versus what they do," the mayor conceded. That is a clear admission that Los Angeles is groping blindly in its budget deliberations, and it is evidence that Villaraigosa continues to govern by political imperative and opportunity rather than in pursuit of a broad, strategic plan for the city.
That would be troubling in the best of times, raising the question of whether city resources are being squandered on ineffective services or programs. But it is all the more upsetting during tough times while Villaraigosa is proposing a series of measures intended to protect those services at their current levels. He is recommending that city employees forgo raises, increase pension contributions and put in an hour or so of work for free every week, and we have applauded him for those sensible alternatives to layoffs. That approach only makes sense, however, if the employees whose jobs would be saved are doing work that the city needs and that the mayor has concluded is vital now and in the future. If he doesn't know whether the city government is the right size, what is the argument for maintaining that size by avoiding layoffs?
As he stumps for city unions to accept cutbacks, Villaraigosa has scheduled a series of public meetings in which he hopes to build support for his alternative to job cuts. In order to deserve that support, Villaraigosa needs to present a coherent vision for where he intends to take Los Angeles, and an articulate defense of why this workforce is the one the city demands. If he cannot supply it, Villaraigosa's budget should get the ax.
