An administrative error in the writing of Measure G, the county government reform initiative passed by voters in November, may wipe away a previous voter-approved measure requiring the county devote 10% of its unrestricted general funds to community investments and alternatives to incarceration.

While Measure G was approved by 51.6% of voters, the fine print called for amending a portion of the county charter that would sunset Measure J by December 2028, in part because J was never protected within the county charter, according to sources close to the administration.

Measure J, passed in 2020, has established the county’s Care First, Community Investment programs known as CFCI, which had an allotment of $626.4 million in the county’s 2024-2025 budget. It is supported by many groups calling for closure of Men’s Central Jail and more job-training, affordable and transitional housing and restorative justice programs.

The issue was raised at the Measure G Governance Reform Task Force meeting on Wednesday night, July 9, by John Fasana, a former Duarte City Councilmember and a member of the 13-member task force, who was appointed by First District Supervisor Kathryn Barger.

Fasana presented one other board member with a 14-page memo he wrote, outlining the error and pointing out in the meeting that a supported anti-incarceration measure approved by county voters in the wake of the George Floyd murder by Minneapolis police officers could end and the money could be used to help pay for Measure G.

“There is definitely a problem concerning Measure J. It is removed, effective at the end of 2028,” Fasana said in an interview on Thursday. “Is there a legal action that can clear this up? Or should we nullify (Measure) G?.”

He also said he has opposed the county reform measure from the start, and said this error is an example of a poorly written measure that blindsided the voters.

“This is a trust issue with the voters. They misled the voters. And I don’t think the public had a lot of time to review it and maybe that is part of the problem,” he added.

Measure G would nearly double the number of members of the Board of Supervisors, from five to nine by 2032. It also calls for having voters elect a county chief executive officer. Currently, the CEO is appointed by the board. In addition, Measure G calls for the creation of an independent ethics commission, several new department heads and the holding of more open budget hearings.

In a split vote, the Board of Supervisors voted to place the measure on the November ballot. Supervisors Barger and Holly Mitchell strongly opposed Measure G, saying the changes were being rushed forward. Third District Supervisor Lindsey Horvath spearheaded the reforms, along with Fourth District Supervisor Janice Hahn, advocating the reforms would make county government more transparent and bring in a much-needed central figure to be in charge.

In a statement released Thursday, Horvath indicated she will bring forth a motion to correct the error and preserve Measure J.

“I remain committed to implementing the will of the voters on both Measure J and Measure G, and will bring forward a proposal to lead the process of correcting the county bureaucracy’s error related to Measure J,” Horvath said.

Fasana was joined in the discussion on this issue by Derek Steele, appointed by Mitchell. Steele is executive director of the Social Justice Learning Institute (SJLI), an Inglewood-based nonprofit.

Sara Sadhwani, a task force member appointed by Supervisor Horvah, said Fasana was violating the Brown Act, a law that requires public board items be advertised, since this issue was not on the meeting agenda. She also said the other members of the task force, nor the public, received copies of Fasana’s memo.

“Clearly, they (Fasana and Steele) were trying to stop the implementation of Measure G, dropping a bomb on all of us around the table,” she said during an interview Thursday.

She said this is an issue that will be examined by the Office of County Counsel. County lawyers will attend the next meeting on July 23 to report back, clarify the issue raised and present a legal assessment for the supervisors to weigh.

“Certainly this is an issue that needs to be looked at,” Sadhwani said. “But this appears to be an issue for the Board of Supervisors. We on the task force should continue our work. We need to move forward and advance the will of the people.”