Voice Deferred: What Happened to LA's Civic Assembly Recommendations

CHARTER REFORM - Earlier this year, a group of Angelenos selected by lottery did something rare. They sat in a room, listened to evidence, talked to each other, and came up with policy recommendations they wanted their city to adopt. It was the first time in nearly 30 years that the Los Angeles City Charter was up for review, and the City Council formed a Charter Reform Commission to take it on.

A civic assembly brings residents together through random selection, chosen to reflect the city's diversity. Experiments like this on a variety of topics have been run from Ireland to the Philippines, and they make a consistent case: when ordinary people are brought together, given time, information, and a fair process, they can reach thoughtful decisions. In a political climate where we are increasingly at odds with one another, having a dedicated space where conflicting views can find common ground truly matters.

Los Angeles had its first real dance with civic assemblies in late 2025. Public Democracy Los Angeles, a grassroots, volunteer-led initiative, partnered with Rewrite LA, a collective of democracy advocates and practitioners, to run two smaller, faster-paced assemblies. Delegates tackled land-use reform in one and wrote the charter preamble in the other. Over hours of learning and deliberation, assembly delegates voiced and came to consensus about what they wanted their city’s charter to be. Their recommendations were formally presented to the Charter Reform Commission.

The Commission listened and reported those recommendations to City Council. That momentum led to something historic: a full-scale civic assembly, facilitated by Healthy Democracy, convened over two weekends to deliberate on City Council structure and governance accountability.

Across the three assemblies, almost 200 residents from every area of the city worked through complex questions and found a shared voice. For once, there were no vested interests, no agenda, and no strings attached, just a room full of people who had something to say and wanted to be heard.

Then, in June, City Council voted and decided which recommendations generated by the assemblies to send to the November ballot.

What Got Through

Some things made it. City Council advanced a five-year Capital Improvement Plan with public input and expanded the Neighborhood Appeals Commission from five members to seven. Council also sent ranked-choice voting, which the Charter Reform Commission had recommended, to further study. It will not appear on this year's ballot. However, these are real steps, and they show what’s possible when government listens to the will of the people.

What Didn't

City Council gutted or rejected the majority of the recommendations designed to empower residents and hold the city accountable.

The preamble residents wrote, the very document meant to state what LA stands for and guarantees for its people, is not on the November ballot.

Residents asked for a permanent civic assembly with a standing role in Council decisions. Council moved it into an ordinance, which means a future Council can eliminate it without a public vote.

Residents asked for an Ombudsman office with anti-retaliation protections. It was not advanced. Data privacy protections drew no action at all. Planning Commission reform that would bring in community members selected by lottery was never touched.

The Pattern

What advanced was streamlining for developers: FAR flexibility, which lets the city change how large buildings can be on a given lot, quasi-judicial reform, and timelines that shorten the window for public input. What was set aside was resident power, community oversight, and the infrastructure that makes participation real.

Again and again, good-faith efforts to hear from the public give way to a system of rules and procedures that makes participation harder and decisions easier to make out of view. Residents' voices are deferred until they are no longer heard.

Why This Matters

Civic assemblies work because they give residents genuine voice. When people deliberate for hours, without political pressure or special-interest money, they make careful decisions about their city's future. But that only means something if institutions act on what residents decide. When recommendations are shaped by residents and then disappear into City Hall, the message is that their voices do not count.

Moving the civic assembly requirement into an ordinance was a choice, and it was a choice to make resident participation optional.

What Now

The November 2026 ballot is set. Voters will decide on the Capital Improvement Plan and the other measures Council sent forward. They will not vote on the preamble, on a permanent civic assembly, or on an Ombudsman. Those decisions have been made for them.

Still, November is where Angelenos can make their voices count. Vote in every race and on every measure. Ask elected officials where they stand on civic assemblies. Ask whether they will restore a standing civic assembly to the charter. Those answers will shape what the next Council does.

The work doesn’t end in November. The recommendations remain under review by the Ad Hoc Committee on Charter Reform, which is expected to meet regularly over the coming year. Residents can follow those discussions, weigh in as the process unfolds, and press Council to carry the recommendations forward ahead of the March 2028 ballot.

The public put in the time and effort to show what a different kind of civic process could look like. City Council should honor that work. Every Angeleno can help ensure that it does by continuing to ask the question this process raised: Was this a one-time experiment, or can it really be the beginning of a new way to be heard?

(Melina Perez is a member of Public Democracy Los Angeles (PDLA), a volunteer-led grassroots coalition advancing civic assemblies and democratic participation in Los Angeles. She has worked with the LA Charter Reform Commission to bring resident-led policy recommendations into the city's charter reform process and advocates for greater public involvement in local governance.)