Council Insists That Mayor’s OK Is Valid : City Hall: Members ignore his belated veto of a proposed Charter amendment and order it placed on the ballot. Bradley vows to continue fight.

Ignoring Mayor Tom Bradley’s attempt to veto a measure that he initially signed by mistake, the Los Angeles City Council on Friday ordered a City Charter amendment placed on the ballot that would give it greater authority over boards and commissions appointed by the mayor.

City Council members said Bradley’s approval of the measure is valid, whether he intended to sign it or not.

City Clerk Elias Martinez, who is responsible for organizing elections, called the matter “a sticky one,” but said he would follow the council’s instructions and place the matter on the June 4 ballot.

The confrontation between the council and mayor appears far from over, however, as Bradley’s office vowed to fight to keep the measure off the ballot.

“The City Council vote today had no merit at all. The veto still stands,” said Bill Chandler, the mayor’s spokesman.

Bradley was backed by the city attorney’s office, which said the belated veto is valid and cannot simply be ignored by the council.

“If the mayor signs an ordinance through error or inadvertence, not intending to approve the ordinance, his signature has no effect,” Assistant City Atty. Tony Alperin wrote in a memo to Martinez.

The showdown over the veto began last week, when Bradley’s office said it discovered that on March 7 the mayor mistakenly signed an order for the election, which had been placed on his desk with a number of other items.

Bradley subsequently asked the city clerk’s office to return the item, then vetoed it.

The ballot measure would diminish Bradley’s power by permitting the council to review decisions by independent agencies such as the airport, harbor and library departments and the Board of Zoning Appeals.

Those agencies are controlled by panels that Bradley appoints. The amendment would give the City Council five days to review board actions and three additional weeks to reverse them.

Alperin, of the city attorney’s office, told the council Friday that it could only put the matter before voters by overriding Bradley’s veto.

But council members said that if they voted to override the veto, or acknowledged the veto in any way, they would be setting a “dangerous” precedent that would allow the mayor to back down on matters he previously approved.

“What the mayor is asking us to do is unscramble an egg,” said Councilwoman Joan Milke Flores, sponsor of the ballot measure. “I don’t think you can unscramble an egg.

“I would think it impossible for the city to do business if we have to, after the mayor signs every ordinance, stop and decide, ‘Did he really mean it?’ . . . It would place a cloud of doubt over every future legislative action taken by the city.”

The City Council voted 10 to 2 to put the matter before voters, equal to the two-thirds vote that would have been needed to override Bradley.

“It was the equivalent of an override, but it’s a subtle legal difference,” said Councilman Marvin Braude, who voted for the measure.

Bradley’s office disagreed, saying its poll of council members showed that some of the 10-member majority would not have gone along with a veto.

Councilmen Michael Woo and Ernani Bernardi cast the only no votes.

Bradley’s strong desire to keep the measure off the ballot was evident Friday on the council floor, where several of his staff members looked on and where the mayor placed last-minute phone calls to council members.

The dispute placed City Clerk Martinez in a particularly uncomfortable bind. Although the mayor appointed him, the City Council reviews his performance.

“I believe his pay raise is up for consideration April 10,” said Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky. “That is not a threat.”