City Attorney Probes Bid to Recall Farrell

The fledgling recall effort against City Councilman Robert Farrell was thrown into limbo Friday as the city attorney began exploring allegations that the petition is fraught with errors and should be invalidated.

Two Farrell colleagues also asked the city attorney to examine whether two so-called recall “proponents,” who now say they support Farrell, were erroneously listed on the petitions.

At least one of them, Sam Williams, denied to reporters that he had been involved in the recall effort. But one prominent Farrell supporter said Williams had acknowledged his involvement only the day before.

If the petition is invalidated, the effort begun last month to gather 12,500 signatures presumably would have to start over, said Bernard Barrett, chief Elections Division clerk. Barrett said the city attorney’s office is expected to make a decision next week.

The petition must be submitted by Feb. 22. Recall backers said they have gathered 2,500 signatures so far.

Recall proponents contend that Farrell has not done enough to reduce crime and to bolster the economy in the South-Central Los Angeles district that he has represented since 1974.

Recall leader Kerman Maddox expressed confidence that the effort will go forward, adding that if “technical mistakes” were made, they will not be considered legally fatal. Maddox, referring to Williams, also charged that there is “something awfully suspicious when someone is walking precincts for you and less than 48 hours later they don’t know what’s happening.”

“We think it’s dirty tricks at its best,” Maddox said, although he said he has no evidence to support his suspicions.

Barrett said the key challenge against the petition is that one of the five people listed on the original petition, James L. Lindsey, lives in Farrell’s councilmanic district, but is registered to vote in nearby unincorporated territory. Whether that fact constitutes a technical error invalidating the petition is being studied, Barrett said.

Added Challenges

But other challenges have been posed in recent days. Mervin Evans, who originally filed the recall petition, has appeared twice before the City Council this week to denounce it. Evans, a third-place finisher when Farrell won reelection last spring, said the recall petition should be quashed because it contains errors.

Although he acknowledged that he originally filed the petition with the city clerk’s office under penalty of perjury, Evans said Friday, “My belief is that a correct document has not been presented.”

Evans said Williams agreed Thursday to appear before the City Council on Friday to denounce the recall effort.

“I was not the author of the statement of intent to recall and I did not fully understand the content or the intent of the statement . . . , “ Williams told the council Friday. “I offer my sincere apology to Councilman Farrell for any misunderstanding.”

Afterward, Williams told reporters that he had not signed any recall documents and first learned of the use of his name from a Farrell supporter, the Rev. Sam Steel. But the Rev. Joe D. Williams, a Farrell supporter who is not related to Sam Williams, said later Friday that Sam Williams told him Thursday that he “was one of the proponents who signed the initial intent letter . . . (but) he said he felt uncomfortable about being involved.”

Another defector from the recall effort, George Armstrong, also said Friday that he now supports Farrell because the councilman’s office had responded to various concerns he raised.

“I have supported Councilman Farrell in the past, and I shall continue to support a councilman that stands with his constituents,” Armstrong said in a statement.