Changes Due in Charter

Fifteen years have passed since the last review of the San Diego City Charter. On the government and politics calendar, that’s a long time--especially for a city that has grown 50%.

Legal challenges and Proposition 13 have left the charter several steps behind the way the city actually does business. Meanwhile, election costs have skyrocketed and voter turnout has shrunk. So this year’s review is not only a welcome chance to play catch-up, but also a chance for some overdue fundamental changes in city government.

Topping the agenda should be the issue of district elections. Five times in the past 18 years, San Diego voters have rejected district elections--the last time in 1981--opting to keep the city’s hybrid system, in which two candidates are elected by their district in the primary and then face a citywide runoff.

Recently, a lawsuit was filed in San Diego challenging the at-large election system, saying it has disenfranchised Latino voters. In addition, anger over rapid growth and its attendant problems has spurred a push for a district elections measure for the November ballot. Backers of the measure see district elections as giving neighborhoods a larger voice in city planning decisions.

The inequity of the current system seems obvious. In the past five years, four candidates who had lost in their district were elected to the San Diego City Council. Further, in a city more than 15% Latino, no Latino has been elected to the council without first being appointed.

Certainly a city of more than a million people is large enough to merit district representation, a cornerstone of most of our other forms of government.

Among the nation’s 10 largest cities, only San Diego and Detroit have no council members elected solely by their district.

The financial fallout of having to persuade such a large audience has further threatened the democratic process. The cost of successfully running for City Council has escalated to absurd levels. A record $2.2 million was spent in last fall’s four council races, compared to $802,504 in 1981. Councilman Bob Filner spent $404,846, more than half of it his own money. This pragmatic argument alone is convincing enough. But more important is that such high-priced campaigns tend to weed out all but the wealthiest candidates.

Another urgent piece of unfinished business for the charter review process is the matter of civilian review of the Police Department.

The city made a small first step last year, when it set up a panel chosen by the police chief to review complaints of police misconduct. But the panel is practically impotent because it can neither interview officers or witnesses nor make recommendations about disposition of the complaint.

The panel’s first report underscored our concern that the process was insufficient: The panel agreed with the police disposition of all 64 complaints it reviewed.

Recent controversial fatal shootings by police officers further convince us that a stronger review process is needed. Whatever charter provisions stand in the way of more civilian participation should be addressed by the charter review committee so the City Council can take the next step.

In the next couple of weeks, the City Council will be making final decisions on members of the charter review committee, which will be headed by the highly respected chairman of the 1973 review, retired appellate Judge Edward Butler. Butler is a fine choice to chair this committee, which will face some thorny questions.

District elections and police review boards are two of the most important, and we hope that the City Council, and eventually the electorate, will use this year’s review to choose equity, openness and pragmatism in city government rather than the status quo.