Bradley’s Mistaken OK of Ballot Item Upheld : Government: Judge says the mayor was ‘negligent’ in accidental approval of measure. Appeal is planned.

Mayor Tom Bradley was “negligent” in performing his duties and will have to live with his accidental approval of a citywide ballot measure that he meant to veto, a judge ruled Thursday.

In a finding that Bradley immediately vowed to challenge, Superior Court Judge Ronald M. Sohigian upheld the validity of a proposed June 4 ballot measure that would reduce the mayor’s political clout by giving more authority to the City Council to oversee city commissions.

Bradley, who had denounced the measure as a “naked power grab” on the part of the council, signed the ballot ordinance by accident in early March.

The legal battle over whether the mayor’s signature should stand is expected to cost taxpayers $150,000 because of missed deadlines for printing sample ballots, according to city estimates.

“The court finds that the mayor’s conduct . . . (in signing the measure) was negligent, that there has been no adequate showing that it constituted excusable neglect, and that the error was not a mere clerical error . . . “ Sohigian said in a written ruling. “The mayor’s signature . . . is approximately five inches below the capitalized ballot title. . . . One would have to not look at the document at all in order to have a misapprehension about what it was.”

Bradley, who has been involved in an escalating power struggle with the City Council over issues stemming from the police beating of Rodney G. King, questioned the ruling by insisting that the measure did not receive his approval.

“My opposition to any move by the City Council to usurp the power of the independent city departments has been steadfast during my tenure,” Bradley said. “In March, when it came to my attention that a council file regarding this item had been inadvertently signed, I immediately asked the city attorney for advice. His ruling was unequivocal: Under the City Charter, an ordinance needs both the approval and signature of the mayor before it becomes law. . . .

“The judge’s opinion leaves unanswered significant questions of law that must still be addressed,” Bradley added. “I will be appealing today’s decision on an emergency basis.”

City Council members, who voted 10 to 2 in March to exploit the mayor’s mistake by placing the accidentally signed ordinance on the ballot, hailed the ruling as a victory for voters and for the logical operation of city government.

If the mayor can sign an ordinance--only to “unsign” it later--then Los Angeles becomes bureaucratic chaos, said Councilwoman Joy Picus.

“It isn’t a personal issue; the issue is, ‘Is there order in this universe?’ ” said Picus, who supported the ballot measure. “I really feel that if you can ‘unsign’ an ordinance, then you can unscramble an egg . . . (and) there is no certainty in anything.”

Council President John Ferraro, who serves as acting mayor when Bradley is out of town, also cited the importance of certainty in decision making. In this case, he noted, the legal notice of the mayor’s action had been published by the time Bradley tried to rescind his signature.

“I think once he signs it and it’s published, that’s it,” Ferraro said. “I sign these ordinances. I don’t read them all--of course not. But I read the brief on (them) and what (each ordinance) is about. I look at them before I sign them. I think he should do that.”

Ferraro predicted that large contractors would spend heavily to try to defeat the ballot measure, which is intended to make city commissions accountable to the council. Presently, those commissions, appointed by the mayor, operate almost autonomously in running the harbor, the airport and other city departments.

The ballot measure would give the council authority on an issue-by-issue basis to review commission actions. The council would have five days to request a review of any action and 21 days to reverse it.

Council members have criticized the lucrative contracts awarded by some city commissions and were especially outspoken in December when the board of the Community Redevelopment Agency agreed to buy out the contract of its embattled administrator, John Tuite, for $1.7 million. Although council members angrily decried the deal, they found they had no power under the existing City Charter to block it.

That controversy provided impetus for the ballot measure, but the stakes in the power struggle were further raised with the subsequent fight between Bradley and the council over the actions of the Police Commission. On the strength of votes from Bradley appointees, the commission voted early last month to place Police Chief Daryl F. Gates on administrative leave during the probe of the King beating; council members battled back to have Gates reinstated.

Councilman Ernani Bernardi, a member who has sided with Bradley in opposing the council’s move for more power, nonetheless agreed with Thursday’s ruling.

“I don’t see how the court could have come up with any other decision,” Bernardi said. “As the judge indicated, it was not just a clerical error. . . . This was a high-ranking elected official. The buck stops here at our desks; we don’t transmit that buck and place it on the (city) clerk’s desk or one of our assistant’s desk.”

Bernardi reacted to Bradley’s promise to appeal the decision by saying, “That would be a horrible mistake.”

If Bradley appeals, it is unlikely to cause further delays in the printing of sample ballots, said City Clerk Elias Martinez. The 1.4 million ballots, estimated to run 30 pages apiece, were due at the printers on April 19 and were held up until the judge’s ruling. As soon as it was made, Martinez said, “We instructed (the printer) to start the job.”

The bill for the work--originally expected to be $293,000--will climb to nearly $450,000 because the printer is having to set aside other jobs and work employees on double shifts, the city clerk said.

“It’s a big job,” Martinez said.

Attorney Robert Forgnone, who fought Bradley’s attempts to block the ballot measure, conceded that the mayor could prevail on the question of whether it ultimately becomes law. If Bradley wins on appeal, votes in favor of the measure might be rendered meaningless.

In his deposition filed in court, Bradley offered a series of explanations for how the mistaken signature occurred, pointing out that 2,400 to 3,000 ordinances a year cross his desk for signature. Of those, “between 12 and 20” are vetoed, usually after they are reviewed and noted by his aide, Anton Calleia.

Bradley said he decides whether to sign individual ordinances by making “a quick glimpse at the summary, or, in some cases where there is simply no evidence of any controversy, I will simply go to the signature page to sign it.”

When asked how he knows if there is evidence of controversy, Bradley said: “There might be a star or a sticker attached to it to denote it or call it to my attention in a special fashion.”

Although that is the practice used in his office, the ballot ordinance apparently arrived without the vital sticker, Bradley said. He told the court he had no recollection of signing the measure and learned of it only when Calleia came to him several days later and said, “Mr. Mayor, I don’t know how to explain, but a terrible mistake has been made. . . .”

Bradley testified that if he had seen even the title of the ordinance, he might have been aware that it was a measure he intended to veto. “I had expressed opposition to this ordinance so clearly and on so many occasions,” the mayor said, “that I would, under no circumstances, have deliberately signed. . . .”