Mayor Finds Little Help in the System

Last Friday, Mayor Tom Bradley had a chance to show he’s still boss.

Instead, the Los Angeles City Council defeated his plans for mandatory water conservation, responding to constituents’ complaints and noting that consumption was down 15%. The council voted for voluntary conservation; if water consumption rises, it will consider compulsory rationing.

Bradley knew he was in trouble on this one, but he tried hard nevertheless to turn the council around. Deputy Mayor Mark Fabiani, looking oh so Wall Street with his sleek hair combed straight back, was the unsmiling field commander who directed the pre-vote lobbying from the rear of the council chambers. He reminded me of a famous enforcer of an earlier era, Bob Haldeman, the muscle for former President Richard M. Nixon.

Haldeman, however, had his own enforcer, John Erlichman, who made Haldeman--or Nixon--seem nice. Fabiani’s enforcer, amiable mayoral aide John Stodder, was showing everyone pictures of his infant son. How are you going to scare the council members? I asked. He said he wasn’t going to try. He’d win their sympathy with the baby pictures.

The baby’s cute, but the pictures didn’t work. Fabiani and Stodder couldn’t even keep all their people in the room. Two of the mayor’s staunchest supporters, Ruth Galanter and Joel Wachs, actually left before the vote. They’re hard workers and I’m sure they had good reasons. But a powerful mayor, like the late Richard Daley of Chicago, wouldn’t have permitted council allies to duck out before an important vote, not even to attend their mother’s funeral.

Actually, not even Nixon’s gang could have won this one for Bradley. A year of scandal has clearly taken its political toll. There was an even more basic reason for Bradley’s weakness. Los Angeles has what’s called a “weak mayor” system of government. The result is a yawning void in political leadership.

The weak mayor system goes back to the progressive movement that swept California before World War I. Opposed to big city bosses, progressive reformers designed municipal governments that divided responsibility among mayors, councils and civil servants. Los Angeles, an incubator of progressivism, was a leader in this movement to emasculate city officials.

Mayor Daley never could have gained a foothold in Los Angeles. Our mayor can’t fire department heads; they’re protected by Civil Service. Partisan politics--Democrats vs. Republicans--was eliminated from local government. Republican Gov. George Deukmejian, or Republican President Bush, can threaten recalcitrant GOP lawmakers by refusing to sponsor Republican fund-raisers for them. Bradley’s got no such clout over the City Council members.

But Bradley, highly popular when elected in 1973, overcame the system, showing for a while anyway that a political figure who is strong enough can lead even in a weak mayor structure. Like other mayors, he has the power of the budget: He writes the spending plan and, if the council changes it, Bradley has the power that Bush craves--a line item veto that gives him authority over council members’ pet projects.

Beyond that, Bradley for many years had solid support on the council, the majority of which has shared his liberal views. And he had a floor leader, Pat Russell. As council president, she scheduled votes and committee hearings in a way that helped Bradley push through legislation.

That’s all gone. The long conflict-of-interest investigation into Bradley’s outside dealings weakened him with council members, who no longer fear his power. Russell was defeated. The present council president, John Ferraro, ran against Bradley in 1985--and he still thinks the best man lost. Friday, Ferraro voted against the mayor on water conservation.

Defeated in the council, Bradley has fallen back on his cunning. In this case, the guile won’t get him any votes. It’s too late for that. But the veteran of many political campaigns understands that perception can be more important than reality. If the mayor can’t control the council, he can at least try to control the spin.

So now the old fox is putting a happy face on the rationing defeat. Here’s the new line from Stodder: Bradley gets credit for persuading consumers to make the 15% consumption cut. Because of the mayor’s leadership, mandatory conservation isn’t needed just yet.

But if water consumption rises, we’re told, the mayor and his aides will hit the council chamber again and once more demand a strict conservation program.

Good luck, mayor. And this time, tell Stodder to leave the baby pictures at home.