Easing of Term Limits Proposed

Los Angeles City Council members took the first step toward potentially gaining an extra four years in office Tuesday by moving forward a ballot proposal that would ease term limits.

The proposal would allow council members to serve up to three four-year terms instead of two, which has been the limit since 1993. The move comes at a propitious time: term limits will otherwise force seven of the 15 council members from office in 2009 and five others in 2011 -- assuming they win reelection next year.

The council voted unanimously to draft an ordinance that would put the measure on the Nov. 7 ballot. A second vote is required by Aug. 4 under city charter rules.

The proposal does not include relaxing term limits for the three citywide offices: the mayor, city attorney and controller, and the matter was barely discussed at Tuesday’s meeting. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who is mulling a run for governor in 2010, has said he has no interest in loosening term limits for his office.

Controller Laura Chick said recently that she would “energetically oppose” any council-only ballot measure, because she believes it would unfairly tilt the balance of power to the council and away from the three officials elected citywide.

Chick has also said that she believes the measure should apply to only future -- not current -- officials; otherwise it could be seen by voters as self-serving.

On Tuesday, she conceded that she was unable to convince the council or the mayor that she was right.

“Now that this is going forward on the ballot, it doesn’t make sense for me to oppose it since the essential issue is extending term limits, and I have always believed in that,” Chick said.

The proposal was made last week by the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce and the League of Women Voters of Los Angeles. Because there is not enough time before the fall election to mount a signature-gathering drive -- the more common way to put a measure on the ballot -- the groups asked the council to use its authority to place the proposal on the ballot.

The proposal has been in the works for months, however, and privately council members had been tracking its progress and keeping tabs on a poll that was commissioned by the chamber in May to test voters’ interest in the matter.

While term limits have long been popular with city and state voters, the poll -- obtained by The Times -- shows that 33% of those who participated said they would definitely support easing term limits and 12% would probably vote for it.

Support increased when term limits were bundled with ethics reforms, and several such restrictions have been added to the ballot proposal.

They include:

* Prohibiting lobbyists from contributing money to city campaigns.

* Forbidding businesses that have run afoul of the city’s ethics laws from competing for city contracts.

* Requiring that all campaign literature or phone calls include a clear message of who is paying for them.

* And banning lobbyists from serving on city commissions. Such a ban is already in effect by executive order of Villaraigosa. The proposed change would make it permanent.

The reliability of the chamber poll has been challenged. In a later question, pollsters asked if respondents believed the term limits proposal was expanding or reducing the number of years in office a council member could serve. Fifty-two percent answered incorrectly, believing it would be a reduction.

The proposal needs a two-thirds favorable vote to pass in November.

On Tuesday, several council members spoke in favor of the measure. Council President Eric Garcetti argued that current term limits have turned people off to politics.

“All in all, this is an extremely strong package,” Garcetti said.

Garcetti also said that while he supports the notion of term limits, eight years is not enough time in office to accomplish complex goals. There is another issue for Garcetti: If voters reject a loosening of term limits, one of his colleagues might challenge him for the council presidency.

In recent years, there has been considerable discussion over whether term limits have backfired. The law was originally designed to promote turnover in government but has caused many legislative offices to be perpetually stocked with rookies.

“It puts good people in the unenviable position of having to choose between microscopic projects that will actually get done versus big, important projects that will be important for our kids,” said Mott Smith, a principal with the urban development firm Civic Enterprise Associates.

Many council members believe that relaxing term limits is good policy -- and they also recognize that the measure might be more difficult to pass if it appears self-serving. But they would prefer to place it on the ballot now than in the spring.

In March seven council members face reelection and would like to avoid being on the same ballot as a term-limits measure. If they wait until 2008, they’ll be facing a crowded ballot in a presidential election year and it would probably be too late to give a third term to those facing expulsion from office by term limits in 2009.

Also Tuesday, the council voted to move forward a second potential ballot measure that would impose term limits for school board members, make them follow city campaign financing laws and raise their annual pay from about $24,000 to an amount not yet specified. Although the Los Angeles Unified School District is not part of city government, the city oversees board elections.

Those recommendations came from a commission created by Councilman Alex Padilla and then-school board President Jose Huizar to study ways to make the school board more effective. Padilla and Huizar, who is now on the council, want voters to be allowed to decide the matter. Both said their proposals do not conflict with Villaraigosa’s attempt to gain greater say over the school board.

“I think most people will tell you, including the mayor, that there will be a school board at the end of this process,” Padilla said, “and if there is going to be one, how do we make sure that they have as effective a role as possible?”