Martin Schlageter, L.A. Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson’s appointee to the Los Angeles Charter Reform Commission, resigned this week, a departure that comes amid heightened scrutiny of the commission’s work and debate over proposals that could reshape the city’s financial oversight structure.

Schlageter’s resignation comes as the commission works toward an early April deadline to submit charter reform recommendations to the Los Angeles City Council. In recent weeks, the panel has drawn criticism from watchdog groups and some elected officials over its internal process and proposals that could alter how financial oversight is handled at City Hall.

In a Jan. 20 resignation letter addressed to Commission Chair Raymond Meza, Schlageter wrote that he stepped down “effective immediately” because he had accepted a job in the City Council President’s office. Schlageter also thanked fellow commissioners and staff and said he remained confident in the commission’s work and direction.

In a follow-up email reply to the SCNG Thursday, Schlageter said he will work in the office of the Council President as a senior advisor for policy and legislation.

He said the timing was driven by his job transition and a desire to avoid “any perception of a conflict” between serving on the commission and working at City Hall.

“Commission debates did not play a role in the decision,” Schlageter wrote. “On the contrary, I am sorry to not be able to participate in the continuing discussions, and I’m looking forward to seeing the results of the hard work of my fellow commissioners.”

Schlageter, a policy professional with experience in regional infrastructure and public works, was appointed to the commission by Harris-Dawson last year.

He recently drew scrutiny for a proposal that would have restructured the city’s financial oversight system, including converting the City Administrative Officer into a chief financial officer role and shifting certain routine financial functions away from the independently elected City Controller to an executive appointed by the mayor and reporting both to the mayor and the City Council.

Under the proposal, the City Administrative Officer would assume responsibility for functions such as revenue collection, processing payroll, and accounting, while the City Controller would retain audit and oversight authority.

Critics of the idea, including City Controller Kenneth Mejia, warned the change could weaken independent oversight by consolidating financial authority within a mayor-appointed office. Mejia argued that moving core accounting functions out of the Controller’s office would undermine transparency and public access to the city’s financial records.

In a letter to the Charter Reform Commission, Mejia said elements of the proposal would be “devastating for transparency and accountability,” warning that they could eliminate nearly 90% of the Controller’s office by transferring key oversight responsibilities to a political appointee who reports directly to the mayor and City Council.

“The idea that accounting is just ‘routine financial functions including processing payroll, accounting, and vendor payments’ and not about oversight is misguided,” Mejia wrote. “These functions are the first line of defense in safeguarding the City’s tax dollars and providing financial transparency and accountability.”

The proposal drew significant public opposition after Mejia urged residents to weigh in publicly.

At a Jan. 10 Charter Reform Commission’s Planning and Infrastructure Committee meeting, attendees raised concerns that elected officials responsible for crafting and approving the budget should not also oversee the city’s financial accounting.

Schlageter defended the proposal at the meeting, telling critics that he shared their concerns about transparency and accountability and arguing that separating financial operations from audit oversight would strengthen — not weaken — the Controller’s watchdog role.

The committee ultimately agreed to continue advancing the concept of a City Chief Financial Officer, while leaving the structure of the role — and how it would be filled — to be debated at future meetings.

A spokesperson for Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson’s office said Thursday the matter remains with the commission and that the office will review its recommendations once they are submitted to the City Council.

“This is for the commission to deliberate on and our office looks forward to reviewing the full package of recommendations when they come back to the City Council,” the spokesperson said.

The debate over financial oversight comes against the backdrop of broader tensions between City Hall and the independently elected City Controller.

Mayor Karen Bass previously declined to allow Mejia to conduct a performance audit of Inside Safe, her signature homelessness initiative. After the dispute became public, U.S. District Judge David O. Carter ordered an independent audit of the program, which found significant gaps in financial tracking and oversight, including the city’s inability to fully account for spending related to homelessness services.

Under the commission’s structure, vacancies are filled through appointments by city leaders, subject to City Council confirmation. The mayor appoints four commissioners, the City Council president appoints two, and the Council president pro tempore appoints two more. Those eight commissioners then select five additional members through an open application process.

Schlageter’s departure leaves the Charter Reform Commission with 12 of its 13 members. Commission Chair Raymond Meza said Thursday via email that the vacancy does not affect quorum or upcoming deliberations, adding that the process for filling the seat is governed by the ordinance that created the commission.

According to the City Clerk’s office, the appointing authority responsible for filling the vacancy would be the office of Councilmember Bob Blumenfield, who is the Council president pro tempore.

The Charter Reform Commission was created in 2024 following a series of City Hall scandals and is tasked with reviewing Los Angeles’ governing document — often described as the city’s constitution. Its recommendations could reshape the balance of power at City Hall and go before voters as early as November.