Split Council Argues Over Court Order : Remapping: Mayor calls the council’s action ‘ridiculous’ as it debates over a decision it had been ordered to make by a federal court.

Displaying its members’ bitter divisions on redistricting, a fractious San Diego City Council on Monday accepted a court order delaying its decision until next week--and, in the process, may have taken the first step back into court over the volatile topic.

Monday’s council vote and related actions underlined both the acrimony and absurdity that have come to surround the decennial effort to redraw the boundaries of the city’s eight council districts--a plan that has spent more time lately in federal courtrooms than City Hall.

Monday saw the council engage in a protracted, 80-minute debate before doing what a federal magistrate last week ordered it to do--a discussion that, though seemingly innocuous, perhaps touched off a new round of legal maneuvering that could begin as soon as today.

“Have you ever seen anything so ridiculous?” a flustered Mayor Maureen O’Connor asked after the hearing. “This is getting crazier as we go along.”

Monday’s council hearing had been expected to be simply a brief, routine continuance of the redistricting debate until July 23, in accordance with the order issued last Thursday by U.S. Magistrate Harry McCue.

In that order, McCue barred the council from proceeding this week, as planned, toward formal adoption of a redistricting plan that has drawn strong criticism from Latino activists, some community leaders and several council members since its tentative approval by the council last week.

Beyond postponing council action, McCue’s order also warns that, unless the council reverses itself and approves an alternative redistricting map developed by a citizens’ advisory board, further court review of the plan is a certainty. Among other things, the plan passed last week dilutes the Latino composition of the proposed Latino-majority 8th District, and would dramatically alter the configuration of several other districts.

Although McCue’s order left the council with little to do other than to accept the week’s delay, Monday’s meeting was anything but brief and routine.

The lengthy debate--punctuated by a few sharp exchanges between O’Connor and Councilman Bob Filner--visibly frustrated some council members, whose chagrin was exacerbated by the fact that Monday’s eventual unanimous decision was tantamount to doing nothing, as ordered by the court.

“All we’re doing is what the judge says we have to do,” Councilman Ron Roberts said, shaking his head. “That shouldn’t take nearly an hour and a half.”

From the perspective of attorneys for the Chicano Federation, the council’s discussion should not have even occurred and perhaps violated McCue’s order, which instructed the council to “not proceed in any way regarding the redistricting” until July 23.

During Monday’s meeting, the council debated, but rejected, the idea of holding a series of public hearings on the redistricting plan--a proposal offered by Council members John Hartley and Linda Bernhardt, both of whom helped pass the controversial redistricting plan that Hartley offered last week.

That discussion, Chicano Federation attorney Patricia Meyer argued, seemed to go beyond the scope of McCue’s order, as well as raise more serious questions about the council’s compliance with a settlement of the group’s 1988 lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the city’s electoral system.

“It sounds like they talked about a lot more than just a continuance,” Meyer said. “I’m shocked that they’re getting into areas that seem to clearly violate the settlement agreement.”

Under the settlement, the city agreed to establish a redistricting advisory board and to provide minority groups a meaningful voice in the development of the new proposed council boundaries. The council’s rejection of the advisory board’s plan last week in favor of Hartley’s proposal--only hours after the latter was publicized--violated that agreement, the Chicano Federation argues.

Similarly, the federation’s attorneys contend that the proposed series of council hearings on redistricting would undermine the advisory board’s purpose.

“This call for new City Council-run hearings seems to usurp the advisory board’s authority, and that goes to the heart of the settlement agreement,” Meyer said, noting that the citizens’ panel held 26 public hearings in preparing its proposed map.

“It sounds like they’re trying to come up with game plan No. 2 when game plan No. 1 didn’t work,” added Michael Aguirre, who filed the original suit and is Meyer’s law partner.

In response, some council members emphasize that, as its name suggests, the advisory board was simply that--a panel that offered advice, not a mandate.

“The name says it all,” Councilman Wes Pratt said last week. “It’s advisory only. I’m not going to delegate my legislative prerogative to an advisory committee or anyone else. It gave us something to start with, not something we had to accept.”

Regardless, Aguirre hinted that, in light of Monday’s council action, the case could be back in U.S. District here before next Tuesday’s scheduled status conference.

“I would not print that we’re not going to be taking any steps before then,” Aguirre said late Monday. “We have some serious concerns about what the council’s doing.”

In his order, McCue directed the council to reconsider both the advisory board’s map and Hartley’s plan next week. The timetable governing an ordinance’s effective date, combined with the council’s planned recess next month, means that, unless the council approves one of the plans next week, it could have difficulty meeting the Oct. 1 deadline specified in the settlement agreement.

Though several council members asked city attorneys to approach the Chicano Federation and the federal judges involved in the case about a possible extension, Aguirre made it clear that one is not likely to be offered.

Feeling that the five-vote bloc that passed last week’s plan is on the verge of collapsing--as evidenced by Hartley’s remark that strong public sentiment could prompt him to oppose his own plan--Aguirre hopes the relatively tight time frame could work in favor of the advisory board’s proposal.

“There has to be a finality, a deadline in these things,” Aguirre said. “Right now, we feel like a team that’s up a couple of points and would be content to let the clock run out.”