City’s Imbalance Is Unmasked

The Rodney King police beating continues to shake Los Angeles city government to its very core. Monday’s ruling by Superior Court Judge Ronald M. Sohigian was another major aftershock. But what’s important about the ruling is not the reinstatement of Police Chief Daryl F. Gates. It’s the judge’s interpretation of the Los Angeles City Charter, which sets forth the power of the city and its elected and appointed officers.

The checks and balances that most citizens assume are embodied in the City Charter, akin to those provided by the U.S. Constitution for the federal government, do not exist in city government, Sohigian ruled. Under the charter, the Los Angeles City Council has “more than ‘legislative’ powers; its powers are also administrative and even quasi-executive,” the judge said. The ruling will be appealed; the more urgent question is whether the people of Los Angeles want the type of city government Sohigian described. The judge’s ruling, if upheld, is a strong reason to revisit the Charter.

According to the nonpartisan League of Women Voters, the government’s organizational structure in Los Angeles is unusual among cities. In theory, the executive authority is vested in the mayor and in all of the departments of the executive branch, and the legislative authority is vested in the City Council. Yet in practice the council exercises many administrative powers. The mayor’s reliance on boards and commissions to run executive departments serves further to diffuse the powers of the executive branch.

This brief digression into civics suggests that this city may never have had any plausible balance of power between the council and the mayor. (It certainly doesn’t have it now.) The heretofore perceived balance could be attributed to a deference this council for many years gave personally to Mayor Tom Bradley and his appointed commissioners--a deference long gone. Balance of power in the city, of course, should not depend on personal relationships or popularity polls.

The Charter in part was designed to save the city from the tyranny of a “boss” mayor. Has it instead given us a boss council, and bureaucrats more powerful than mayors?