As local government careens from one corruption scandal to the next, the city and county of Los Angeles each charged forward this election season with ballot measures to try and crack down on unethical behavior by public officials.

The city wants to bolster its nearly 35-year-old ethics commission with Charter Amendment ER, which would give the watchdog body a minimum yearly budget of $7 million.

The county, meanwhile, wants to create its first ethics commission with Measure G.

The county ethics commission, along with an office of ethics compliance, would come with no set budget. But according to an Oct. 24 county analysis reviewed by The Times, the ethics reforms in Measure G could cost as much as $21.9 million a year, with salaries and employee benefits making up most of the price.

If voters approve Measure G on Nov. 5, a task force would be set up to determine the shape of the ethics commission — for example, how many members it should have.

The cost estimate has left both supporters and detractors with sticker shock.

“That is so absurd,” said Rob Quan, an organizer with Unrig LA, which has advocated for measures to eliminate corruption in both the city and county. “I’m baffled by this.”

“We’re not even in the right ballpark,” said Quan, who previously told the county supervisors that he thought the ethics reforms in Measure G were “half-baked.”

“If the city could do it for seven million, why is it going to cost so much more than the county?” said political science professor Fernando Guerra, director of the Center for the Study of L.A. at Loyola Marymount University.

But Guerra, who co-wrote the ballot argument in favor of Measure G, said he still thought the ethics reform package was a no-brainer for a county with a budget of $49 billion.

“Even if it’s that amount, that’s so cheap for what you’re going to get,” added Guerra. “It’s a drop in the bucket.”

The five county supervisors are divided on Measure G, which in addition to creating an ethics commission would nearly double the size of the Board of Supervisors and bring on an elected executive who would act as a quasi-mayor.

Supervisors Hilda Solis, Janice Hahn and Lindsey Horvath pushed for the measure, arguing it would make the county more responsive to its 10 million constituents. Supervisors Kathryn Barger and Holly Mitchell said it was misguided, with too vague a price tag.

Everyone, however, said they could get on board with the idea of an ethics commission. Last month, the board voted unanimously to ask county lawyers to look at what it would cost to carry out the ethics reforms — regardless of whether Measure G passed.

That preliminary report, returned last week, put the yearly cost at between $16.8 million with 73 employees and $21.9 million with 93 employees.

“Wow, that is a big staff,” said David Tristan, head of the city’s ethics commission, which has a budget of $6.3 million and employs 45 people. “I’d love to have that budget.”

About 13% of the yearly cost would go to services and supplies, while the rest would pay for staff, according to the county report.

The report does not include a cost for setting up the commission. The auditor’s office previously said that one-time costs to implement all of the proposals in Measure G — which would include expanding the board — would be about $8 million.

The Yes on Measure G campaign lambasted the county’s report as rushed and simplistic, “meant to dissuade voters before a critical election.”

“Measure G is historic and it’s no secret that special interests and long-time bureaucrats are scared of real accountability and reform,” said campaign chair Morgan Miller.

A majority of the supervisors said they still wanted to move forward.

“The cost estimate provided in this report seems high and I wonder how they landed on this number,” Hahn said. “But we can’t afford not to do this.”

Barger and Mitchell, who have opposed Measure G, similarly said they saw the need for an ethics commission, though Barger called the cost range “concerning given our County’s fiscal forecast” and Mitchell said she would look for places to make “cost-efficient adjustments.”

For those already skeptical that the commission would do much to root out corruption, the high cost was further proof that it was a bad idea.

“What can they cut? Firefighters? Child welfare workers? The sheriff’s budget? I don’t see them proposing to cut their salaries,” said former Los Angeles City Councilmember Ruth Galanter. “If they have that much money lying around in the county budget, they should all be fired, for crying out loud.”

Galanter, who held office from 1987 to 2003, vehemently opposed the city’s ethics commission when it was created in 1990, convinced it would do little to squash corruption.

Following the corruption-related convictions of two former city council members, a former deputy mayor and a former city commissioner, Galanter said her fears were borne out. She suspects the same will be true for the county’s attempt.

“What an incredible waste of time and money this ethics things is,” said Galanter. “It does not produce more ethical elected officials. What’s the point?”

If Measure G passes, the county would need to create the independent ethics commission and the office of ethics compliance by 2026. The commission would be responsible for investigating misconduct by county employees and updating county rules regarding conflicts of interest and lobbying, among other duties. The office of ethics compliance, led by an ethics compliance officer, would provide support to the commission.

The language in the ballot measure prohibits the county from raising taxes to pay for the changes.

Horvath, who spearheaded the measure, said there is enough money in the county budget to pay for the reforms, since the county could tap staff who are already doing similar ethics-related work in the executive office, the Registrar-Recorder and the Auditor Controller’s office.

“Nothing is more important than safeguards against corruption,” she said. “The staff and funding already exist in our current form of government.”

Sean McMorris, who specializes in ethics and accountability issues for the advocacy group California Common Cause, said the price tag doesn’t faze him. A robust ethics commission is expensive, he said, which is why only bigger cities typically create them.

He’s more concerned about what shape the commission will take. Many of the details around the ethics commission are meant to be hammered out once voters have already approved the measure, he said.

“It’s just like, wait and see,” he said. “It makes me nervous.”