Charter Proposals Need More Airing, Council Panel Says

With some of its members openly critical of the Charter Review Commission’s proposals for realigning city government, the San Diego City Council’s Rules Committee Wednesday agreed to allow the full council and the public to discuss them again before deciding which suggestions to place on the ballot.

The committee also sent the politically charged subject of redistricting to the full council, which will debate whether to put the issue in the hands of an independent body or leave it with the council members themselves.

The committee’s eventual decision on charter revisions, if ratified by the full council, is likely to delay a public vote on the package of 13 suggestions and might result in additions to the list by the council, which is expected to begin debate on the proposals in about a month.

Ratification appears likely because the Rules Committee is composed of six of the council’s nine members.

Of the six committee members, only Mayor Maureen O’Connor and Councilman Wes Pratt said they would honor the council’s April 4, 1988, pledge to place all commission recommendations on the bal lot. Council members Ron Roberts, Bruce Henderson, Judy McCarty and Gloria McColl did not address the issue or said that they did not necessarily intend to abide by the commitment.

With some council members irked by the commission’s decision to hold all its meetings in City Hall, the Rules Committee resolved to circulate the proposed charter revisions to community groups citywide.

“Requiring people to come to you, I just don’t think it was enough,” said Councilwoman Judy McCarty, in a comment echoed by other council members.

The Rules Committee also agreed to study forms of government in other U. S. cities with populations of more than 500,000, an effort similar to one already conducted by the commission.

Lack of Input Called ‘Straw Man’

Commission vice-chairman John Wertz called the discussion of lack of public participation a “straw man” set up by council members opposed to some of the recommendations. According to the commission’s final report, it held 48 meetings at which it heard testimony from representatives of 79 organizations and 123 individuals. Another 126 wrote to the commission.

“The members of this Rules Committee were either not fully aware of what we did do, or they have another motive or agenda here,” Wertz said in an interview after the decision. That motive is “to delay, if not deny, the voters the right to vote on these things this year,” he said.

Councilman Bruce Henderson, who was perhaps most critical of some commission proposals, said that he was not attempting to derail the commission proposals.

“In no manner is that my intent,” Henderson said in an interview. But he added that the seriousness of the proposals requires “thorough discussion” and “extensive deliberation” before they are placed on the ballot.

The 13 Commission Proposals

The 13 commission proposals include the symbolic--like changing gender-specific references such as “he” to gender-neutral terms--and the profound. Substantive changes in the governmental system would be brought about by giving the mayor veto power and expanding the council by two districts. The commission also proposes establishing a neutral redistricting panel.

Last year, the commission placed on the ballot a proposal for an independent police review board. Though the measure was approved by a majority of the voters, it received fewer votes than a similar, weaker measure placed on the ballot by the council.

Council committee members offered a wide range of criticism of the commission’s recommendations, many of which were in response to last year’s voter approval of district elections. In previous elections, council members ran in district-only primaries, with the top two vote-getters facing each other in a citywide runoff.

“In essence, I find that the Charter Review Commission has provided us with no meaningful argument as to why we should change our form of government,” Henderson said.

“What you’ve done is come back with changes and you haven’t been able to establish that there was a problem,” said McCarty, who added that the provision for a mayoral veto would give the mayor “two votes” on issues.

Support for Changes

O’Connor and McColl, however, argued for the changes that would strengthen the mayor, who will now be the only council member elected citywide.

“I think we need to go to a strong-mayor form of government,” McColl said. “But what you have brought forward, I don’t think goes far enough.”

On the redistricting issue, the committee heard Councilman Bob Filner urge the establishment of an independent commission that would leave politics out of the decision to remap council districts and equalize population.

Because of uneven growth since the last redistricting in 1980, the districts now range in size from the estimated 111,257 people in Roberts’ 2nd District to the 156,883 people in Councilwoman Abbe Wolfsheimer’s 1st District.

A newly formed citizens’ group has announced its intention to place an initiative on a ballot to establish an independent, seven-member redistricting commission to handle the 1990 redrawing of city political boundaries.

Filner is concerned that the council’s Republican majority will draw district boundaries that put most San Diego Democrats in his 8th District and Pratt’s 4th District, creating an almost certain Republican council majority for the next 10 years.

“You can draw six Republican districts and two Democratic districts and keep that situation for the decade,” Filner said.

The council also must grapple with the Charter Review Commission’s suggestion of expanding the number of council districts to 10, a proposal which, if implemented, could dramatically alter the size and shape of the existing districts.