San Diego County is one of the largest and most complex local governments in California. It manages nearly $9 billion in public funds and delivers essential services to more than 3.3 million residents, from health care and housing to public safety and disaster response.
That scale of responsibility demands excellence, transparency and accountability.
Yet our governing structure has not kept pace with the county we have become.
Decades ago, San Diego adopted a professional management model that concentrated significant authority in the executive branch while limiting independent oversight tools available to elected officials and the public. At the time, that model reflected the county’s size and level of influence on the lives of local residents.
But as the county has grown, the guardrails have not grown with it.
That is why the county of San Diego Charter reforms being discussed by Supervisor Terra Lawson-Remer, the chair of the Board of Supervisors, deserve serious consideration.
First, San Diego County remains an outlier among major jurisdictions in lacking an independent ethics commission with authority over elected officials. Most large cities and counties have concluded that ethics enforcement should not rest solely within the same political system it is meant to police. Independent ethics commissions review complaints, conduct investigations and publish findings publicly.
An independent ethics commission strengthens government. It protects ethical officials from unfounded accusations through professional review. At the same time, it reassures the public that misconduct, when it occurs, will not be handled behind closed doors. Accountability, properly designed, protects both integrity and credibility.
Second, we have long benefited from excellence in administrative leadership and should continue that tradition. However, we can add an important check and balance with the creation of an independent budget analyst separate from County management. The analyst would report directly to the Board of Supervisors and correct a longstanding imbalance in fiscal oversight.
The County budget is not merely a ledger of spending. It is built on revenue forecasts, cost projections, and policy assumptions that shape priorities long before a vote is taken. Under the current structure, nearly all that analysis is generated within the County’s equivalent of an executive branch. The Board of Supervisors — the legislative branch — often receives a proposed budget after key assumptions have already been embedded in the document.
That creates an information imbalance. When the bureaucracy controls both the proposal and the underlying analysis, elected representatives are left reacting rather than shaping fiscal policy.
An independent budget analyst, modeled on institutions such as the Congressional Budget Office, would provide nonpartisan fiscal expertise to test assumptions, model alternatives, and evaluate long-term risks. This does not politicize budgeting. It professionalizes it, giving policymakers and the public a clearer view of tradeoffs before decisions are locked in.
Transparency should not stop there. Third, the charter reforms also establish an independent program auditor. Like the independent budget analyst, the auditor would be firewalled from management and report to the Board of Supervisors. When an organization audits the very programs it designs and implements, an inherent conflict exists. Independent evaluation allows policymakers to see which programs are actually effective. Public dollars should be directed toward strategies that can stand up to this scrutiny.
Fourth and perhaps most importantly, the charter reform package also brings greater public accountability to senior county leadership by requiring a confirmation process for key department heads and establishing a carefully defined removal authority requiring a supermajority vote. This preserves professional management while recognizing that leaders who wield significant authority over public resources should be accountable to voters through their elected representatives.
While I have never supported term limits, if they are to remain, they should be structured thoughtfully and applied uniformly. Three four-year terms for all county elected officials, including the sheriff and district attorney, strikes a better balance between continuity and accountability than the status quo.
These reforms are targeted guardrails designed for a modern, nearly $9 billion public institution. They strengthen checks and balances without undermining day-to-day operations. They clarify authority without creating instability.
Importantly, they are designed to be implemented without new costs to taxpayers, relying instead on restructuring and independent oversight, including an independent Charter Reform Implementation Task Force, to reduce inefficiency, duplication, and long-term risk.
At a time when public trust in institutions is fragile nationwide, strong institutions can demonstrate they are not threatened by oversight by welcoming more of it.
San Diego County deserves a governance structure equal to its size, its responsibilities, and the expectations of its residents. Ethics oversight that is visibly independent. Budget analysis that is transparently tested. Program evaluations that are objectively conducted. Leadership that is accountable in clear and structured ways.
When residents cannot clearly see how ethical standards are enforced, how budget assumptions are tested, or whether programs are evaluated independently, and have no oversight over key the senior management leadership responsible for billions of vital programs, public confidence erodes, even when intentions are good.
Jack McGrory is the former city manager of the city of San Diego.
Well first off, throwing your advise around without saying what went down at the free stadium venue at the Qualcomm site is suspicious. Second, supporting county leaders who can’t balance a budget without raiding the back up fund is suspicious. So, this would be a better argument given better leaders.