San Diego County Charter Reform Proposal
Opinion: Charter reform will strengthen accountability in San Diego County
Sparks Governance Debate
Board Chair's Plan Would Extend Term Limits, Create Ethics Commission, and Shift Power Dynamics
BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front):
The Proposal
In mid-February 2026, San Diego County Board Chair Terra Lawson-Remer unveiled an ambitious proposal to fundamentally restructure county governance, potentially placing the charter reform measure on the November 2026 general election ballot. According to reporting from Voice of San Diego and the San Diego Union-Tribune, the package represents the most significant overhaul of the county's governing framework since its 1933 adoption.
The proposal encompasses five primary components. First, it would establish an independent ethics commission with investigative authority and power over elected officials—a feature the county currently lacks despite being a major jurisdiction managing nearly $9 billion in public funds and serving 3.3 million residents. Second, it would create an independent budget analyst position reporting directly to the Board of Supervisors, providing fiscal analysis separate from county management. Third, it would establish an independent program auditor to evaluate whether county programs deliver intended results. Fourth, it would enhance accountability for senior leadership through confirmation processes and removal authority requiring a supermajority vote. Fifth, and most controversially, it proposes extending supervisor term limits from eight to twelve years and converting the appointed Chief Administrative Officer position into an elected "County Executive" or "County Mayor."
The draft ballot language presented to survey respondents refers to the initiative as the "San Diego County government reform, public disclosures, ethics and accountability measure." Notably, the proposed extension of term limits would allow supervisors to serve "three, four-year terms" but does not disclose that supervisors are currently limited to two terms. Experts have flagged this omission as potentially misleading to voters.
The Timeline and Process
Lawson-Remer's office conducted early polling in fall 2025 using taxpayer funds—approximately $40,000 to survey roughly 700 residents—to gauge public support for charter amendments. The polling presented favorable results: nearly half of respondents said they would definitely support the ballot language, while another quarter said they probably would. Specific provisions, including the three-term limit for supervisors, also drew broad support in polling, though survey respondents were not informed that supervisors currently face only two-term restrictions.
As of February 2026, Lawson-Remer indicated she planned to finalize ballot language for submission to the Board of Supervisors by April 2026, with the goal of Board approval by August 7, 2026—the deadline for placing measures on the November 2026 ballot. Any proposed ballot measure requires approval by a majority of supervisors, according to Antonia Hutzell, a spokesperson for the county Registrar of Voters.
Arguments in Support
Supporters frame the charter reform as essential governance modernization focused on transparency, accountability, and effective service delivery. In a February 2026 opinion piece published by Voice of San Diego, governance analyst Jack McGrory argued that San Diego County's current structure creates structural imbalances favoring the administrative bureaucracy over the Board of Supervisors' legislative function.
"Under the current structure, nearly all [budget] analysis is generated within the county's equivalent of an executive branch," McGrory wrote. "The Board of Supervisors—the legislative branch—often receives a proposed budget after key assumptions have already been embedded in the document." An independent budget analyst modeled on institutions such as the Congressional Budget Office, he argued, would professionalize fiscal oversight and provide elected representatives with nonpartisan analysis to test assumptions and model alternatives before decisions are locked in.
Billy Tomasello, district vice president for Cal Fire Local 2881 of the San Diego County Firefighters Union, emphasized continuity and emergency preparedness as justifications for extended terms. In an opinion piece published by Times of San Diego, Tomasello argued that supervisors approve budgets for wildfire prevention and behavioral health systems that require experienced policymakers who understand long-term policy impacts. "Supervisors approve budgets that fund wildfire prevention and shape the behavioral health systems that often intersect with emergency response. Those systems have been built over many years," Tomasello wrote.
Lawson-Remer told Voice of San Diego that her working proposal includes "budget transparency and budget independence, stability, ethics reform, open government and public participation, greater accountability of staff leadership to voters and the public, and rigorous program evaluation to protect taxpayer dollars."
Significant Criticism and Concerns
Despite preliminary polling support, the proposal has faced substantive criticism from governance experts, some labor organizations, and civic advocates—particularly regarding implementation details and the appearance of self-interest.
Vague Ballot Language and Implementation Concerns. Sean McMorris, the transparency, ethics and accountability manager for California Common Cause, highlighted a critical gap: Lawson-Remer's draft ballot measure lacks key details about the powers and structure of the proposed ethics commission and elected county executive. "Frankly, the devil's in the details, and there aren't any details," McMorris told reporters. He noted that Los Angeles County faced similar shortcomings during its 2024 charter rewrite vote, where voters approved the measure without full clarity on implementation—leaving county supervisors significant latitude in defining what the charter actually means in practice.
The "County Mayor" Proposal's Unpopularity. Lawson-Remer herself acknowledged that the proposal to convert the appointed CAO position into an elected county executive has proven "the least popular proposal" in feedback received. Crystal Irving of SEIU Local 221 stated: "This proposed charter reform package has critical reforms such as strengthening independent ethics standards, audits and budget oversight. However, we are uncertain if the elected County Administrative Officer is right for our county as it could place too much power in the hands of one person."
Kyra Greene of the Center on Policy Initiatives—a progressive San Diego nonprofit that has partnered with Lawson-Remer on charter development—echoed this concern. "It is one of the things I'm least interested in seeing happen," Greene said. "I think it would be very disruptive, and I'm not convinced that it leads to better governance."
Timing and Self-Benefit Questions. The timing of the charter reform proposal—coming as Lawson-Remer herself approaches her term limits—has drawn scrutiny about potential self-dealing. If approved, the extension from eight to twelve years would allow Lawson-Remer to serve two additional years beyond her current eligibility, absent the term limit change.
Contextual Backdrop: The CAO Selection Controversy
The charter reform proposal arrives amid ongoing litigation stemming from the county's contentious 2024 selection of Chief Administrative Officer Ebony Shelton. In October 2024, Michael Vu—a nearly 18-year veteran county employee who served as Assistant Chief Administrative Officer—filed a $5 million legal claim alleging racial discrimination, retaliation, and violations of the state's open meetings law (Brown Act).
Vu claims that despite an informal succession plan with his retiring supervisor, CAO Helen Robbins-Meyer, he was passed over due to the conduct of Board members. He alleges former Supervisor Nora Vargas stated that the new CAO should be "a person of color" and, when Robbins-Meyer noted that Vu is Asian, Vargas allegedly responded: "That doesn't count, they have opportunities and education. We need a Hispanic or Black."
Vu also alleges that Lawson-Remer proposed a quid pro quo arrangement: she would support his CAO appointment if he agreed to hire Paul Worlie—a Democratic strategist and former chief of staff to disgraced ex-Supervisor Nathan Fletcher—as his assistant. According to Vu's filings, both he and Robbins-Meyer rejected the offer. After CAO Ebony Shelton was selected in June 2024, Vu was demoted to a deputy CAO position overseeing the elections office, resulting in an $85,000 pay cut. He resigned in October 2024.
In April 2025, Vu filed a formal lawsuit against the county naming both Vargas and Lawson-Remer as defendants. Both officials denied the allegations. Lawson-Remer stated: "This is not the first disgruntled employee who has filed a lawsuit when they did not get hired for a job." Vargas, who resigned unexpectedly in January 2025 citing "safety concerns," issued a statement denying the allegations and asserting her commitment to diversity and inclusion.
In February 2026, the county fought disclosure of an email from Robbins-Meyer to former County Counsel Claudia Silva describing what Robbins-Meyer characterized as an "egregious quid pro quo" and "unethical scheme" by Lawson-Remer. The email remains a subject of litigation regarding attorney-client privilege claims, though portions have been referenced during public comment at Board meetings.
County Budget Context
The charter reform proposal comes as the county faces looming federal budget pressures. In June 2025, the Board voted 3-1 in favor of a proposal directing county staff to prepare for anticipated cost shifts in the federal budget following the Trump administration's proposed reductions to housing, health care, and behavioral health programs. Supervisors Lawson-Remer and Monica Montgomery Steppe warned that federal cuts could shift "hundreds of millions in costs" onto the county. The supervisors requested that Chief Administrative Officer Ebony Shelton prepare a detailed report by July 22, 2025, outlining the county's readiness to absorb potential federal program reductions.
Comparison to Other Jurisdictions
The proposal to create an elected county executive parallels recent changes in Los Angeles County. In 2024, Los Angeles County voters approved a broad charter rewrite—by a narrow majority—that expanded the county Board of Supervisors from five to nine members, created an ethics commission, and authorized voters to elect a county chief executive for the first time. That election is scheduled for 2028. However, McMorris noted that the L.A. County charter rewrite, despite voter passage, proceeded with insufficient detail regarding implementation, leaving county supervisors significant discretion in defining charter provisions' practical meaning.
Next Steps and Uncertainties
The proposal remains a "work in progress," as Lawson-Remer noted. As of late February 2026, several key details remained unresolved, including the precise powers and composition of the proposed ethics commission, the scope of the independent budget analyst's authority, and specifics regarding the elected county executive's relationship to the Board of Supervisors. The Board is expected to take action on ballot language by April 2026, with a goal of submitting the measure to county voters by the August 2026 deadline.
If approved by voters, the charter reform would represent one of the most significant governance changes in San Diego County since the adoption of its 1933 charter, fundamentally altering power dynamics between the Board of Supervisors and the county's professional administrative staff while extending the tenure potential of elected supervisors.
Verified Sources and Formal Citations
Comments
Post a Comment