Commentary : Has the Council Forgotten About Honor and Ethics?

In the Old West, people used to say that a man’s word was as good as his bond. In the new San Diego, a City Council promise seems to be as good as a junk bond issued by a bankrupt savings and loan.

A year ago, the San Diego City Council confirmed the nominations of 15 men and women to serve on a Charter Review Commission. Their job was to review the city’s charter and propose changes to be put before the voters.

The resolution adopted by the council declared:

“That this council fully acknowledges and declares that all recommendations made by the commission shall be placed directly on the ballot without further council directive . . . (except for the actions required to place matters on the ballot).”

We insisted on the commitment as a condition to our acceptance of a year of unpaid effort to review the charter, hear and debate proposals for change and make our recommendations to the people for charter revision.

We declined to serve as an advisory committee to the council. We worked as an independent citizens review board. While appointed by the mayor and council, we were not puppets to be jerked around by the strings.

Our work produced 14 ballot proposals. The first, a recommendation for a police review board with broad investigative powers, went on the ballot last year after acrimonious council debate regarding the council’s commitment.

The review board proposal won a majority vote, but lost by a narrow margin to a rival measure sponsored by the council.

The remaining 13 proposals went before the council last week with what now seems a predictable result: Five members reneged on their promise to put our charter revision proposals to a vote of the people. The package of proposals was DOA--dead on arrival.

I call the roll: Ed Struiksma, Bruce Henderson, Judy McCarty, Ron Roberts and Gloria McColl. Only Mayor Maureen O’Connor, Wes Pratt and Bob Filner were true to the council’s commitment. (Abbe Wolfsheimer was absent.)

As chairman of the commission, I regret the year we spent hammering out charter revisions to enable local government structure to cope with the challenges of the future.

As a citizen, I am saddened by this gross disregard of simple precepts so essential to the functioning of government at all levels: honor, ethics, trustworthiness.

President Bush sets ethical standards for Washington public officials--principles of right and wrong governing conduct. Five members of our City Council do not hear, or heed, that trumpet call. No wonder voter turnout at elections is low.

The solution is clear: Require candidates for office to demonstrate those qualities of trustworthiness we all recognize in everyday life. Positions on issues are important. Personal qualities and beliefs in those ancient principles of right conduct are more important.

The curtain has dropped on the first act of this 20th-Century morality play. Other acts will follow because the times demand that we restructure our form of city government. The 1931 charter was carefully tailored to fit a small city with a military-based economy--white hats and tattooed sailors on lower Broadway, one high-rise office building, the Convair plant on Pacific Highway. Public office was a part-time civic duty. The office of mayor was ceremonial and a secretary served as staff for the City Council, which was nominated by district and elected at large.

The city manager was just that. He ran the city and elected officials kept out of his way.

Look at San Diego in 1989 and study the forecasts for the ‘90s and into the 21st Century. Sixth-largest city in the country. A skyline of high-rises. Well over a million residents. High-tech industry. Traffic congestion a la Los Angeles. Billion-dollar sewage problems. Rampant growth.

The 1931 charter simply cannot cope with the brave new world. Amended over the years, council offices are full time with large staffs and a total budget of more than $3 million, often used to second-guess and overrule the city manager.

I foresee petty principalities vying with each other and the mayor for power.

To me, these proposals are imperative: Increase the mayor’s power, create an independent redistricting commission to form council districts. Limit council power to changing park uses and selling city land. Redefine the role of the city manager.

The Charter Review Commission proposals move the city in those directions. The people deserve the right to vote on them. And all of us have the right to demand that the City Council fulfill its commitment.

Honor, ethics, trustworthiness are principles to be carried on banners--not trailed in the dust.