PERSPECTIVE ON CITY GOVERNMENT : Balance of Power Has Tilted, Badly : The passage of City Charter Amendment 5 will politicize and Balkanize the decision-making process.

It’s time for an overhaul. Past time. The Los Angeles City Charter had its last substantial revision 66 years ago when our population was a fraction of its current burgeoning size. The charter has endured fairly well, but it is now past retirement age. (Individuals develop and mature. Charters don’t. They have to be force fed.)

We are faced today with the City Council’s brazen use of its “litigation” power against the Police Commission and its sponsorship of Charter Amendment 5, which passed June 4 and gives the council final authority over every decision of the city’s commissions. The balance of power has been tilted, badly, in the wrong direction.

It is obvious to longtime residents of Los Angeles that our ability to get things done as a city has slowed to a shuffling walk. Leadership (or the lack thereof) can be held accountable, or be responsible, for just so much of this paralyzing inaction. Leadership and the power to lead, the power to act, must be joined.

If we are to be in a position to deal with our multiethnic challenges and fulfill our destiny as one of the great cities of the world, we cannot do it solely through the varying whims of 15 council members who are elected only by the the constituents in their districts. Each council member’s primary focus is to get reelected, a focus which understandably narrows his vision to the concerns of his or her constituents. We must live with such parochialism, because no council member is elected at large. But if the council can review every decision of every commission, the inevitable “I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine” theory of government will simply further erode our already-questionable balance of power.

For example, the Cultural Affairs Commission--to which I was appointed by the mayor last August with the approval of the council--has the power under the charter to approve the “design and location” of all structures and bridges on or over city property and streets. In an effort to establish a uniform citywide policy, the Cultural Affairs Commission has prepared criteria by which proposed pedestrian bridges are to be judged. A bridge proposed by a constituent of Councilman Hal Bernsen failed to meet the criteria and was rejected. As a result, Bernsen tried to wrest the decision-making process from the commission by proposing his own charter amendment making this a reviewable issue by the City Council. In light of the passage of Amendment 5, his efforts are moot--but the result has been the same. We have now politicized and Balkanized the decision-making process of all city commissions.

Los Angeles has an infrastructure that works, up to a point, as can be seen by the independence of the Airport, the Harbor and Water and Power departments. Until June 4, the City Council was barred from interfering with these proprietary departments or their treasuries. Now all of that has been changed. In contrast, the areas of zoning, transportation, parks, zoos and cultural affairs have always been ultimately controlled by the council and its negative political effect on these institutions has been all too apparent.

Amendment 5 will quickly become a lawyer’s and lobbyist’s welfare fund. The ambiguities inherent in what kind of commission decision can be appealed to the council will be litigated.

What kind of hearing must the council grant in an appeal of a commission decision? Can the council dispose of such matters by committee action? What we have here is a Pandora’s Box full of endless questions.

We are also confronted with Superior Court Judge Ronald Sohigian’s decision supporting the council’s power to “settle” any matter, thereby undermining any decision by a city official. This, too, needs full exploration.

What should be the division of power between the legislative and executive branches? What is the proper role for the conflict-laden city attorney’s office? What should be the level of independence of city departments, including the police, from the political process?

It is time--again, past time--that a citizen’s group be formed to study these questions and propose a newly amended charter for our city. Such an amendment could be put on the ballot by a petition signed by 15% of registered voters.

It is true that a charter amendment also can be placed on the ballot by the City Council. Indeed, the council has already taken initial steps to explore such a move, which, I submit, is very much akin to giving the fox full guest privileges in the hen house.

Los Angeles deserves better. The eyes of the world are upon us. The Eastern media has enjoyed its continuing roast of our city. Some of it is deserved. Los Angeles must be innovative, daring, free to act and make mistakes. A strong, independent executive branch that can keep all of this great city in balanced, forward movement is needed. The time to start the process is now.