Unions representing thousands of Los Angeles County workers are pushing back on a plan to create an elected county chief executive, warning that such a move would “politicize” the position.

The leaders of unions representing firefighters, paramedics, probation officers and sheriff’s deputies said Tuesday that county supervisors should drop the plan to have voters elect the chief executive, who would manage county operations and oversee the budget.

The proposal is one piece of a larger charter amendment planned for the Nov. 5 ballot, which would redesign county government by expanding the number of supervisors from five to nine, establishing a director of budget and management, creating a legislative analyst and forming a new ethics commission to combat corruption.

Derek Hsieh, executive director of the Assn. for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, said the overall proposal — which surfaced in the last month — is being rushed to voters without an understanding of the potential costs and the effect on other county services.

“We think it’s being hastily done,” he said. “And the notion that this entire thing has zero cost is simply not true. It may not require new taxes, but they’ll be reducing other services to fund it.”

Hsieh said his union has not yet taken a position on the larger ballot proposal. But he noted that many of the county’s other employee unions are just starting to review the details and deciding whether to weigh in.

The county already has a chief executive officer, who is appointed by the five supervisors and also can be fired by them. Hsieh contends that an elected chief executive would establish their own political power base, setting the stage for power struggles with the board and confusion over who is in charge.

The supervisors voted 3 to 2 on Tuesday to approve an ordinance that would place the changes to county government on the Nov. 5 ballot. Supervisors Kathryn Barger and Holly Mitchell voted no.

Another board vote will be needed to secure the proposal’s place on the ballot.

Before Tuesday’s vote, Barger and Mitchell tried without success to strip the language calling for an elected countywide executive. Barger said she fears that a countywide executive elected by a simple majority may not feel obligated to serve every community in the county.

“I do not believe that a politicized chief executive would be better for this county, or for my constituents,” she said.

Under the ballot proposal, the elected county executive would be in place by 2028, while the board expansion would happen by 2032.

Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, who co-authored the proposal with Supervisor Janice Hahn, said it would make the county more responsive to its 10 million residents. She argued that the new system would actually reduce confusion, with department heads reporting to the chief executive rather than the five supervisors. And she pushed back on the notion that there would be a harmful impact, saying the charter amendment “does not propose service cuts of any kind.”

Horvath also responded to assertions that the board will end up “politicizing” the county’s top executive.

“I think that’s one way of looking at it — if that’s how you look at direct democracy,” she said. “I think [the proposal] is making sure this position … is accountable to the public, just as we all are.”

The supervisors have been divided in recent weeks over the Horvath-Hahn proposal, which would expand the size of the board for the first time in more than a century.

Backers say an expansion of the board would improve representation for some communities, creating new opportunities for Latinos and Asian Americans to win seats. Those arguments have come from elected officials from smaller cities in the San Gabriel Valley, including Monterey Park, Alhambra and West Covina, as well as several advocacy groups.

Supervisor Hilda Solis, who voted for the ballot proposal, pointed out that she is the only Latina on the five-member board, in a county whose population is nearly 50% Latino. She also took aim at the proposal’s critics.

“There are a lot of people who are afraid, thinking they are going to lose power, thinking that they’re going to lose some kind of position,” she said.

Each supervisor earns about $280,000 per year and represents roughly 2 million people, overseeing an array of services that include healthcare, mental health and social services targeting the county’s homeless population.

Barger and Mitchell said they have long supported an expansion of the board. But they questioned whether nine supervisors is the appropriate number, while also disputing the idea that the proposed governance changes would be cost-neutral.

The two called for a fiscal analysis to be required for all countywide ballot measures. That proposal passed unanimously on Tuesday, ensuring that voters will receive information on the financial impact of the plan to reshape county government.

“We have a responsibility to make sure the voters have a clear picture of all the costs,” Mitchell said.

Meanwhile, it’s not yet clear whether the criticism from county employee unions could create trouble for the proposed ballot measure.

AFSCME Local 685, which represents 2,400 county workers, including probation officers, said that while it opposes an elected county chief executive, it has not taken a stance on the larger ballot measure.

“Managing a budget of $43 billion and a workforce of 116,000 people … is a job for a career professional, not a politician,” the union’s executive board said. “We strongly oppose an elected countywide executive and have therefore not yet taken a position on the potential measure as a whole.”

Dave Gillotte, president of Los Angeles County Firefighters Local 1014, urged the board on Tuesday to remove the plan for an elected countywide executive from the larger ballot proposal. A spokesperson for his union did not comment on whether the group opposes other elements of the proposal.

Times staff writer Rebecca Ellis contributed to this report.