Hill Offers Potential Senate Rival a Deal : Politics: Assemblyman Frank Hill says he may introduce legislation to extend three Diamond Bar city councilmen’s terms. But he wants a promise from one of them in return.

State Assemblyman Frank Hill, R-Whittier, says he may propose legislation to extend the terms of three Diamond Bar City Council members--but only if one of them agrees not to run against him for a state Senate seat.

Hill said Tuesday that he may add an amendment to an existing bill that would delay Diamond Bar’s scheduled April, 1990, municipal election until April, 1991, allowing Councilmen Gary Miller, Gary Werner and John Forbing an extra year in office.

According to a technicality in state law, the new council members couldn’t fill their two-year terms until 1991 without the special legislation.

But the extension, if passed, could help Miller’s chances in the special state election next year to fill the seat vacated by the resignation of Sen. William Campbell (R-Hacienda Heights). That way, Miller wouldn’t have to run simultaneously for state senator and city councilman.

Hill, one of five elected officials targeted in an ongoing FBI investigation into political corruption in the Capital, already has declared his candidacy for Campbell’s seat. Miller also has announced tentative plans to run.

But Hill said he would retract the amendment if Miller enters the state Senate race.

“If Gary Miller has made a firm decision that he’s going to run against me, I’ll retract the legislation,” Hill said in an interview Tuesday. “I am not interested in giving him any additional advantages.”

After learning of the assemblyman’s statement, Miller said he was “shocked at the arrogance of Mr. Hill, imposing this condition on the city of Diamond Bar. That’s ridiculous. As a result of this conversation, I’m being swayed in the direction (of running for Campbell’s seat).”

Although there is no legal requirement that he do so, Miller has said he would give up a 1990 council reelection campaign if he decides to go for the state seat. If an extension were granted, he wouldn’t have to give up either pursuit.

After Tuesday night’s Diamond Bar City Council meeting, Forbing expressed outrage that Hill is making Miller’s candidacy a factor in whether he proposes the legislation.

“He’s holding us hostage,” Forbing said. “This shouldn’t have anything to do with who’s running against the assemblyman.”

Hill responded yesterday: “It’s just practical politics. I don’t think anyone’s accusing me of being a fool. . . . However (council members) react is fine with me. They’re asking me to do them a big favor.”

City officials have been trying since late summer to postpone the election. They discovered in August that newly elected council members Miller, Werner and Forbing were not guaranteed two-year terms, as city officials originally had believed.

The complication arose because of the timing of Diamond Bar’s incorporation as a city earlier this year. Because Diamond Bar staged its incorporation election in March, state law requires it to hold a municipal election in April, 1990--even if that means shortening the terms of council members.

Hill’s proposal would exempt the city from that provision.

Politics aside, delaying the election may be a long shot. Unless legislation passes to allow the extension, the council is required to formally set an April, 1990, election date by Jan. 4, City Manager Robert Van Nort said. If legislation is passed after that, the council would have to take special action to overturn its decision.

City officials originally had turned to the county for help. But the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors rejected Diamond Bar’s request to hold the municipal election in November, 1990, because too many cities already had submitted similar requests, Diamond Bar City Atty. Andrew Arczynski said. So city officials, including Forbing and Van Nort, lobbied Hill, who promised to look into legislation.

Proponents of the extension say it would be too expensive to have another municipal election so soon. The city already is $52,000 in debt to the county for costs incurred during the last election. Proponents also argue that an April, 1990, election wouldn’t give voters enough time to assess new council members’ performances.

“We haven’t had a chance to prove one way or another whether we’re doing a good job,” Forbing said. “What would the people be basing their vote on?”

Meanwhile, Mayor Phyllis Papen and Councilman Paul Horcher are trying to keep their distance from what could turn into a heated political issue in Diamond Bar.

Papen and Horcher, the top finishers in the city’s March election, don’t face reelection until 1992. Their three colleagues, who finished behind them in the balloting, are the only ones directly affected by the extension controversy.

Horcher said he’s “ambivalent on that issue. I’m not one of the three who have to sweat it out next year.”

Added Papen: “I’m not involved in this. I wasn’t the one who approached Frank Hill.” Hill, however, said all the council members, including Papen, have discussed the proposed extension with him.

Outside the City Council, there are those who criticize the plan to extend the terms. One critic is Gary Neely, who unsuccessfully ran for the City Council in March, finishing in sixth place, 119 votes behind Forbing.

“I believe in sticking with the law. I don’t see any reason to change the law just to help these particular candidates,” Neely said. “Some of us have already seen what those council members are like, and some of us would just as soon see them out.”

Cleve Holifield, who finished in seventh place and plans to run in April, also opposes the extension.

“It would have a greater disruption than leaving it alone,” he said. “It’s unfortunate the incorporation election caused this shrinkage of terms, but that’s the price of incorporation during an off year.

“During the next several years, that will iron itself out. After 1992 and ‘94, everything will be back in its proper position.”