Mayor’s Veto of Police Plan Upheld in 7-7 Council Vote

Mayor Tom Bradley won a big victory in the Los Angeles City Council on Friday when the lawmakers failed to overturn his veto of their proposal to add 100 more officers to the Police Department next year.

In the crucial part of the final debate on the city’s $2.12-billion budget, the mayor’s veto was upheld, 7-7. Ten votes of the 15-member council are required to override a veto.

As the debate stretched into the afternoon, the council won some small victories, the biggest one increasing the size of the reserve fund from $22 million to $27 million.

And, after his his big win on the Police Department, Bradley clearly wanted to avoid more combat. Faced with strong council opposition, he withdrew his veto of $100,000 to increase publicity for the Los Angeles Zoo and agreed to scuttle his proposal for $94,560 to help finance a task force for Africa-Los Angeles relations, based at UCLA. In fact, Bradley’s chief staff budget adviser and lobbyist, Anton Calleia, made a spot decision to back off from that request when opposition seemed overwhelming.

Prestige on the Line

It added up to 30 vetoes submitted by Bradley, 16 overturned. But the score was deceptive. Bradley’s power and prestige were on the line on the police vote and that was where he made his greatest effort.

His success was clear even before the voting began. Opening the debate, Council Finance and Revenue Committee Chairman Zev Yaroslavsky said, “There are not the votes to override, there never have been.”

The budget Bradley submitted to the council provided for a Police Department with an authorized strength of 7,000 uniformed officers. That proposal contained enough to continue an interim increase of 100 officers approved earlier in the year.

The council voted to add $2.6 million for 100 more officers to bring department strength to 7,100. It did this by reducing roughly the same amount of money that had been allocated for purchase of new unmarked police cars.

On June 4, voters will decide on a property tax increase that would provide funds for a 1,000-officer increase in the department. The measure, Proposition 1, would result in a property tax increase of $58 a year for the typical homeowner.

After the vote, Deputy Police Chief Barry Wade, who had been pushing for the council version, said: “We have a budget process that works very well . . . that process has determined what our resources will be. We will enthusiastically do the best we can in the future with the resources that have been given us.”

Bradley, usually victorious in major budget fights with the council, made telephone calls to council members to assure his victory, ranging from a conversation with Councilman David Cunningham, a stalwart mayoral supporter, to Councilman Howard Finn, whose vote Yaroslavsky considered up in the air. “He asked me if I had read his veto message,” Finn said.

‘Arm-Twisting’ Cited

Bradley foe Councilman Hal Bernson told his colleagues “sufficient arm-twisting has gone along the circle,” a reference to the semi-circular arrangements of member’s seats in the chamber. Council members, he said, “are going to knuckle under.”

Councilman Joel Wachs, who had originally backed the plan for 100 additional officers, changed his mind on the final vote. He said he objected to the council’s way of financing the increase, by using money previously allocated for new cars. He said use of one year’s equipment money would provide no funds for the additional police in future years.

Yaroslavsky warned that council support of the mayor would endanger voter approval of Proposition 1 because Los Angeles residents will believe the council was not willing to cut expenses to hire more police.

“My constituents want us to . . . squeeze every cent before they vote a tax increase,” he said.

Bradley and his backers have maintained that overturning the veto would have hurt the Proposition 1 campaign because voters would come to believe the tax increase was not needed.