City Atty. Must Change Ballot Measure Analysis

A Superior Court commissioner has ruled that the Lawndale city attorney’s official analysis of an April 12 ballot measure must be changed before it is sent to voters on a sample ballot.

Ruling last week on a lawsuit filed by opponents of the ballot measure, which seeks voter approval of a major renovation of the city’s civic center, Torrance Superior Court Commissioner Abraham Gorenfeld ruled that City Atty. David J. Aleshire must delete from his analysis a sentence stating that the city has obtained a “triple-A” rating for certificates of participation. The certificates are bond-like instruments by which the city plans to finance the controversial project.

Gorenfeld also directed that the analysis should add that the ballot measure “does not prevent the city from changing the plan” described in the analysis.

Ruling Called a Victory

Attorney A. D. (Jack) Allen, who filed suit on behalf of the residents who oppose the measure, known as Proposition A, claimed a victory in the ruling.

He said Aleshire’s analysis was misleading because it suggested the city would be able to retain its triple-A rating despite a recent loss of substantial city funds in speculative investments.

Proposition A opponents put the city’s loss at $1.9 million, but city officials claim it is closer to $1.5 million. An auditor’s official analysis has listed the amount as $1.68 million.

In their lawsuit, City Council candidates Herman Weinstein, Virginia Rhodes and Nancy J. Marthens also criticized ballot arguments written by members of the City Council in favor of Proposition A.

But Gorenfeld in his ruling essentially let those arguments stand, and focused only on the city attorney’s analysis, Aleshire said in announcing the ruling at Thursday’s council meeting. Aleshire said in an interview that he does not expect the city to appeal because of the short time left to print ballot information for the April 12 election. Weinstein, Rhodes and Marthens said in their suit that Proposition A is “a blank check” that is so vague and unspecific that it would allow the council to enlarge the civic center project at will.

Although Aleshire’s analysis, to be published in the voter pamphlet accompanying the ballot, states details of the project, such as its projected cost of $5 million, the proposed ordinance that appears on the ballot contains no such details.

Proposition A, placed on the ballot by the City Council, reads as follows: “Shall an ordinance be adopted authorizing the city council to construct and provide the financing of improvements to the civic center, including a community center, health center, library and related parking and landscaping, provided that no property taxes shall be imposed to pay for such improvements.”

Also on the ballot is Proposition B, an ordinance that would require voter approval for public projects costing more than $1 million in city funds. That initiative, which is supported by Weinstein, Rhodes and Marthens, qualified for the ballot with 976 signatures.

It, too, was the subject of a lawsuit in which residents sought to force the City Council to put the exact petition language on the ballot. A settlement was reached in which all parties agreed on the ballot wording.

Meanwhile, in other litigation matters, the City Council on Thursday approved settlements of two suits in which groups called Friends of Lawndale and the Civic Center Residents Assn. challenged the civic center expansion on environmental grounds.

In the settlement, the city agreed that if Proposition A fails and voters reject the civic center plan, the council will agree not to try to proceed with the project until April, 1990, at the earliest.

The agreement provides that if Proposition A passes, the opponents would not fight the project on environmental grounds. The city agreed to pay Allen’s attorney’s fees of $6,500 for each of the suits.