2026 CANDIDATE SURVEY
Katy Yaroslavsky
Candidate for Los Angeles City Council District 5
To help foster greater discussion about reforming City Hall, we asked City of LA candidates to participate in a six question survey. Half of the questions seek general feedback, and the rest are issue specific.
Please note survey responses, candidate information, and website links are provided for informational/educational purposes only. Fair Rep LA is presenting these responses as submitted without edit, evaluation, or commentary. Fair Rep LA does not endorse, support, or oppose candidates or their responses in any way.
Survey Info:
-
Answers: Respondents were told that questions could be answered in 1-2 sentences, and that while additional context was welcome, the form had a 1,250 character limit for each question (approximately 200 words).
-
Resource Document: Additional background information was provided via a resource document.
-
Participation: Surveys were sent to all City of LA candidates qualified to appear on the ballot. This is a very busy time for candidates, so we appreciate everyone who made time to respond. Please avoid reading too much into a candidate’s lack of participation. We respect the limited bandwidth campaigns have, and it's possible that our request(s) may have been lost in their inbox.
-
Background: The City of Los Angeles is undergoing the first comprehensive review of our city’s governance structure in 27 years. The Charter Reform Commission recently transmitted a report containing over 60 recommendations to the City Council, who will soon be deciding what will be sent to the November ballot for potential approval by voters.
My strongest support is for reforms that help Los Angeles plan, budget, and operate like a serious institution. That includes codifying a multi-year Capital Improvement Plan, creating a Director of Public Works to coordinate infrastructure delivery, and requiring stronger transparency around project costs, timelines, and performance. I also strongly support removing Section 104(g), the Charter restriction on business enterprises, because it limits the City’s ability to use public assets creatively to generate revenue for public services. I support the Ethics Commission reforms, including an Inspector General team, independent counsel, and a secured budget. I also support periodic Charter review every ten years. More broadly, I support reforms that move operational details out of the Charter and into ordinance, where the City has more flexibility to adapt.
My biggest concern is the package of reforms labeled “Expand Mayoral Powers.” The report describes this as allowing the Mayor to reorganize departments, transfer funds and employees between departments, and participate in Council meetings. I understand the goal of clearer executive leadership, but I want to be careful about expanding mayoral authority without drawing cleaner lines between executive and legislative power. The Commission itself flags executive and legislative authority as an issue for future review, noting that Angelenos expect the Mayor to run the City and the Council to make laws, but the Charter blurs those roles. If we are going to change that balance, we should be explicit about Council oversight, budget authority, and checks and balances. Efficiency matters, but accountability has to come first.
I would like to see more work on civil service reform, especially mid-career hiring pathways and promotion rules that better reflect merit, performance, and specialized expertise. The report identifies civil service reform as an issue for future review, including entry-level hiring, mid-career recruitment, retention, and workforce quality. I would also look at Council operating rules that belong outside the Charter, including committee structure, meeting frequency, and other internal procedures. Those rules should live in Council rules or the Administrative Code, not the City’s constitution. The report also flags the commission system of government as a future issue, including a full audit of commissions to determine which should be kept, consolidated, or eliminated. That fits the larger goal: put structure and accountability in the Charter, and move operational detail elsewhere.
I’m open to expansion, but the answer to distrust in our political system is not necessarily adding more politicians. Adding more elected officials is not automatically the same thing as giving residents more power or improving outcomes. The test should be “does this make City Hall more accountable, more ethical, faster, and easier for residents to navigate?” That’s my goal through this process. I want to see that case made clearly before asking voters to expand the size and cost of city government.
I’m open to ranked choice voting, but I have questions and am still considering whether it’s the right move right now. It has clear benefits that we have seen in other parts of the country. It gives voters more choice and may encourage broader coalition-building. My concern is implementation. If city and LAUSD races use one system while state and county races use another, that could confuse voters and hurt participation. If Los Angeles moves to ranked choice voting, it should do so with the county, and possibly the state, so voters have a clear and consistent process.
There is a strong civic argument for allowing 16- and 17-year-olds to vote in local elections, especially LAUSD elections. It could expand civic participation and help young people build the habit of voting earlier in life. My questions are about implementation and voter protection. The Justice Department has sought statewide voter registration lists from states, and election officials have raised concerns about privacy and federal overreach. Before moving forward, I would want clarity on how youth voter data would be protected, how separate ballots would work, and how Los Angeles would avoid creating new vulnerabilities in election administration.