Coalition Attempts to Restructure Council : Representation: The citizens group said it has gathered enough support for a ballot measure to break up Glendale into five City Council districts.

A petition drive that could shatter Glendale’s political structure appears to have gathered enough signatures to go before voters in November or April.

Nearing the end of a six-month effort, a small group of civic dissidents called the Coalition for Electoral Reform this week claimed to have gathered at least 11,000 names on an initiative calling for a change to district City Council representation in Glendale.

If approved by voters, it would divide the city into five council districts, each with a single elected representative. The measure would probably cause at least two current council members to lose their seats. It would also spark a scramble for political power in sections of Glendale that now appear to have little clout in the city’s decision making.

Coalition members have accused the current council of catering to politically active north Glendale neighborhoods and downtown business leaders while neglecting less affluent south Glendale areas and remote communities such as La Crescenta and Montrose.

The group has little funding and no support from Glendale’s mainstream political leaders, but its members believe they have tapped into widespread discontent with the city’s present leadership.

In the closing days of the campaign, coalition leaders continued to collect signatures. Arthur Segien, a Glendale apartment owner and City Hall gadfly who chairs the coalition, sat behind a card table outside a supermarket Monday, vying for the attention of shoppers.

“Want to sign a petition for better government in Glendale?” he asked.

When Laurell Gaines stopped at the table, Segien showed her a map of the city. Three City Council members live in the affluent Chevy Chase Canyon community, he told her, and the other two also live in the northern Glendale.

Segien, 78, said his petition would require that council members come from all parts of Glendale, ensuring broader representation.

“I don’t like this city government,” Gaines said after signing the petition. “You don’t have a representative in your area. You write a letter to the council members and to the mayor, and they ignore it.”

Segien smiled. “We get that all the time,” he said. “They’re not responsive to the people at all. That’s a big complaint.”

The coalition leader said his group will submit its petitions to the Glendale city clerk’s office on Monday, two days before its 180-day gathering period expires. With a week to go, he said the group had roughly 11,000 signatures.

Glendale had about 69,500 registered voters at the time the petition drive was launched. The coalition needs valid signatures from 15% of them--about 10,400 names--to put the initiative on the November general election ballot. With 10%, the measure would appear on next April’s municipal election ballot.

When the petitions are checked by the Los Angeles County Registrar, a number of signatures will probably be disqualified because of duplication or because the signer was not registered to vote in Glendale. As a result, it may be several weeks before residents learn whether the measure has qualified for the ballot and for which election.

If voters approve it, the council must divide the city into five districts, each with roughly the same population. The measure forbids odd-shaped district boundaries, which might allow all or most of the current members to continue in office.

If the initiative is approved in November, the election for district council members would occur in April. If the measure does not appear on the ballot until April and is then approved, the first district council members would be chosen in a later election.

The initiative also would require that a district council member receive a majority of the votes, even if a runoff election is needed. Currently, Glendale’s at-large council seats go to the top vote-getters, even if the candidates receive less than 50%.

If the measure qualifies for the ballot, it will undoubtedly trigger a powerful opposition campaign by well-organized and well-financed Glendale leaders who want to preserve the present system. A similar ballot measure was voted down in 1975.

The current council members have pulled no punches in attacking the district elections plan.

“I think it’s probably one of the worst possible things that could happen in this city,” said Councilwoman Ginger Bremberg.

Bremberg is one of the three council members who live in Chevy Chase Canyon, and district elections could allow only one to remain on the council. Nevertheless, Bremberg insisted that the current elected officials are opposed to district elections “not from a position of saving our jobs, but saving the city.”

Glendale residents now vote for five council members. Under the district plan, residents could vote only for the council member serving their area, and the candidate must live in that district. The system is used in cities such as Los Angeles and Pasadena.

Glendale’s present council members say district elections would reduce a resident’s ability to influence City Hall.

“Instead of having five representatives to deal with, the residents will have only one,” Mayor Larry Zarian said. “I’m very concerned about pork-barrel politics, Chicago-style.”

He and Bremberg predicted that a district system would prompt more “back-room deals” in which council members would trade support for projects in one another’s districts.

Bremberg, who is usually at City Hall every day, and Zarian, who conducts regular public forums, said no south Glendale residents have complained to them that their area is under-served. Bremberg and Zarian also said the council has funded more improvements in south Glendale in recent years than in any other part of the city.

“I have not heard any good arguments that Glendale needs districts,” the mayor said. Bremberg pointed out that the petition drive was launched by Richard Seeley and Robin Westmiller, two candidates who lost in Glendale’s April, 1989, council election.

“I suspect that the defeated candidates want to see if they can get on the council by reducing the number of votes they’d need,” Bremberg said.

Westmiller, Seeley and Segien all deny that they are planning to seek a district council seat. In fact, Westmiller said she is selling her Glendale home and will move out of the city.

Seeley said fewer than 10 activists are doing the lion’s share of the signature collection. He and Segien have paid some people 50 to 75 cents per name to seek signatures, but the coalition leaders said those names make up a small portion of the total.

Westmiller said she hopes the measure qualifies for the November ballot, when Californians will flock to the polls to choose a new governor.

“My preference right now is getting the darned thing passed,” she said. In November “it might get buried under everything, although we’d have the advantage of a larger turnout.”

Other activists said the city’s own April ballot would focus more attention on the measure and give the coalition more time to campaign.

“We’d have to seek contributions,” Seeley said. “Obviously, you can’t run a campaign without money. The other thing is communication. That’s the biggest problem we have. Communicating with the public is very difficult.”

He said the coalition will also have to combat widespread voter apathy and low registration trends in some parts of Glendale. Without strong support from those who feel neglected by City Hall, the voters who support the present council will defeat the district plan, he said.

But Westmiller believes opposition to Glendale’s present leadership is strong enough to ensure approval of the council districts initiative.

“We don’t have to do anything,” she said. “The current City Council is doing everything it can to make sure it does pass.”