Role of a Referendum in Naming Convention Center Is Cloudy

San Diego Councilman Wes Pratt contended Wednesday that opponents of the proposal to name the San Diego Convention Center for the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. would have no legal grounds to use the referendum process to overturn votes of the council and the San Diego Board of Port Commissioners in favor of that action.

Pratt, the council’s only black and the leader of the drive to honor King, said the lengthy 1985 agreement between the two agencies allows them to rename the convention center by voting to amend it and recording that vote in writing. Since that written agreement would not be a “legislative act,” it could not be used as the basis for a referendum, Pratt claimed.

“It’s my belief that it’s an amendment to an agreement between the city and the port, and it’s not a legislative act,” Pratt said Wednesday. He said he will ask City Atty. John Witt for a legal opinion on his interpretation of the law.

Grounds for Referendum?

Robert Pruett, leader of a citizens group that has threatened to strip King’s name from the convention center by referendum, if necessary, said Wednesday that Pratt is mistaken.

“I think that any attorney would disagree with him,” Pruett said. He said he has received advice from several attorneys whose “feeling is that we have grounds to hold a referendum.”

Chief Deputy City Atty. Curtis Fitzpatrick, who wrote the 1985 agreement that spells out the terms under which the city will operate the convention center, said he could not offer an opinion on Pratt’s contention without researching the subject. San Diego Unified Port District attorney Joseph Patello was not in his office Wednesday and could not be reached for comment.

Pratt’s remarks came a day after port board Chairman Louis Wolfsheimer said he would again bring the King tribute proposal before his seven-member board at its May 16 meeting. Wolfsheimer agreed to the unusual move after a request from Mayor Maureen O’Connor, who in February called the chances of naming the convention center for King slim.

The council voted, 7 to 2 Jan. 10, to rename the $160-million bayfront convention center for King. The proposal was sent to the port commissioners, who also must approve any name change, but that panel dodged the issue Feb. 21 when the renaming was not brought up for a vote.

Political Hot Potato

Instead, the commissioners voted, 4 to 3, to create an “Avenue of Honors” on the convention center’s bayfront terrace and make King its first inductee. The port sent the political hot potato back to the council, where it languished for more than two months until O’Connor made her request Tuesday.

Wednesday, Pratt said he told O’Connor Tuesday he would initiate action on the name change at Tuesday’s council meeting if she did not. The mayor then volunteered to send a letter to the port commissioners asking for a vote on the council’s proposed name of San Diego Martin Luther King Convention Center.

A majority of the seven port commissioners--San Diego appointees Daniel Larsen, William Rick and Wolfsheimer, and National City appointee Delton Reopelle--have publicly committed themselves to vote for the King tribute. Larsen, however, sided with Chula Vista representative Robert Penner, Imperial Beach representative Milford Portwood and Coronado appointee Raymond Burk on the Avenue of Honors proposal Feb. 21, preventing a vote on the name change. None of the commissioners could be reached for comment Wednesday.

Pratt contended that a May 13, 1985, ordinance approving the convention center “management agreement” also does not give Pruett’s committee grounds for a referendum, although it is clearly a “legislative act.” Pratt claims that the ordinance’s only purpose was to authorize the city manager to enter into the agreement and that the ordinance is silent on the name change.

Although Fitzpatrick agreed that management decisions are not subject to referendum, he said the traditional view of case law on this subject is that ordinances passed to adopt such agreements can be the basis for referendums.

For example, city attorneys were in court earlier this month arguing that a citizens group’s referendum on a council ordinance approving the Miramar Ranch North development agreement was legal.

Fitzpatrick also suggested that the council’s Jan. 10 resolution endorsing the King tribute--or a future one it might be asked to pass--might be considered legislative acts subject to referendums.

Rule on Signatures

Organizations wishing to place referendums on the ballot have 30 days from the day of a council action to gather sufficient signatures on petitions requesting a reversal of the decision.

Pruett said his organization, Citizens to Keep the Name San Diego Convention Center, has not decided whether it will hold a referendum drive solely within the city of San Diego or in all five cities that compose the Port District.

Either way, Pruett said, voters will certainly strip King’s name from the convention center, just as they decided in 1987 to overturn the council’s decision to rename Market Street as Martin Luther King Way.

“When it goes to a referendum, the City Council is going to be horribly embarrassed,” he said.