Self-regulation is a messy business. In politics, it can seem elusive.

When elected officials adopt rules to govern the conduct of elected officials, they’re pulled in one direction by constituents who favor restrictions and punishments, and in the other direction by self-preservation, a basic instinct politicians have in abundance. Progress tends to be incremental and uneven as a result.

This is where we are with the Los Angeles City Council and its continuing struggle to respond to the public’s shaky confidence. On one hand, indictments and damning revelations about members of the council have convinced even its most recalcitrant members that they need to do something to regain trust. On the other, members like their seats and don’t like facing consequences. 

The council has adopted some reforms, and they are mild but promising. The city’s Ethics Commission wants to raise fines for ethics rules violations and protect its budget from political meddling, and the council recently agreed. The council also has cleared the way for creation of an independent redistricting commission. Voters will get to consider the Ethics Commission changes and the redistricting reform on the November ballot. 

The fines are attention-getting, but the creation of a redistricting commission is the biggest advance. Remember that this current round of City Hall reforms sparked after the revelation of a grotesque conversation among several council members and a union leader over how to divide up council districts to enhance Latino representation at the expense of Black representation. 

The union boss and then-Council President Nury Martinez both were chased from office over the recording, which attracted attention for its racist language but, at its heart, was about voting rights.

The recording captured a conversation intended “literally to disenfranchise” voters, as Councilman Paul Krekorian told me this week. Krekorian took over the council presidency after that scandal and has led efforts to reform the city’s ethics and voting rules in response. Krekorian claimed “tremendous progress” on the reform effort even though many were disappointed with the results.

Both sides have a point: The creation of an independent commission charged with creating district boundaries would, if approved by voters, go a long way toward removing the power that council members brazenly discussed in that infamous meeting. Give the council credit, then, for pressing ahead with those proposals, even if some members did so begrudgingly.

And yet, the council also flinched at some ideas and so far has punted on the big one.

When the reform package reached the council this month, it included a provision that would have allowed the Ethics Commission to take matters directly to voters, rather than having to clear them through the council. But the council ultimately removed that provision. Krekorian was one of two members who wanted to preserve it.

For Fernando Guerra, a professor at Loyola Marymount University and an advocate of ethics reform, the council fell short of what he and many constituents wanted. 

But he also says he’s not that surprised. Polls conducted after the recorded conversations became public found that most Angelenos hadn’t even heard of the controversy. The election to replace Martinez drew just 13% turnout, typical for a council race but not evidence of a groundswell of public outrage.

Indeed, one of the council members who was featured on those recordings, Kevin De Leon, continues to hold his seat, banking that he can ride out the controversy. So far he’s been correct.

Guerra was particularly disheartened by the council’s decision to block the ethics board from being able to access the ballot. The commission, he said, “is not truly independent or powerful unless it has the power to act autonomously.”

Although the ethics reforms and redistricting commission both will be on the ballot, the change with the most potential to revamp city business remains beyond the reach of voters. For more than 20 years, advocates have been arguing that the council itself needs to grow in order to shrink the size of council districts. 

Read More: Why more Angelenos are finally beginning to embrace LA City Council expansion

Proponents see that as key to bringing Los Angeles in line with New York and Chicago, and to approach some semblance of actual neighborhood representation. Today’s LA council districts include more than 250,000 residents, big enough to make each of the 15 its own city.

Guerra and a group of academics consulting on the Los Angeles reform effort proposed enlarging the council to 25 members – though that proposal was hamstrung by a clumsy formulation that suggested 21 districts and four at-large members selected in staggered terms. That recommendation, however, would not really reduce the size of districts. They claimed introducing at-large members would “change the chemistry of the council,” but did little to explain how or why. 

Competing proposals for the size and structure of the council were exactly what opponents of reform hoped for. With ideas floating around for 18 seats or 21 seats or 25 seats or, most ambitiously, 45 seats, the council found it easy to table the idea. 

The good news is that Krekorian remains committed to expansion, and he has pushed through a vehicle that could still deliver it. The council has approved, in principle, the creation of a charter reform commission that could overhaul the city charter, including the size of the council. 

That commission, which does not require a vote of the public, would be made up of four members appointed by the mayor, two by the council president, two by the council president pro tem – and those eight would then pick five more, for a total of 13. The charter commission could, in turn, generate a measure for voters on enlarging the council, or, as Krekorian prefers puts it, “council district-size reduction.”

This is where we are with political reform in LA. The council gives with one hand and holds back with the other. Its members accept that someone else will draw their district lines and that they may face higher fines in the future if they break the rules. But they balk and slow-walk other ideas, especially the ones that would cut the size of their districts and curtail their individual influence.

It’s a long process, but Krekorian is right: It is progress.

Jim Newton is a veteran journalist, best-selling author and teacher. He worked at the Los Angeles Times for 25 years as a reporter, editor, bureau chief and columnist, covering government and politics....