District-Election Proposal Proves Divisive : Anaheim: Residents at debate sharply disagree over the need to eliminate at-large voting.

In a wide-ranging discussion of municipal reforms, city residents Tuesday night sharply disagreed over the need to eliminate at-large city elections in favor of district voting.

The session, drawing emotional responses from the audience, brought two former council members back to City Hall, where one--former Mayor Ben Bay--urged leaders not to discard the at-large election system.

“This represents the most serious change requested in the history of our City Charter,” Bay said. “Across the entire country, people are unhappy with their governments. There is a general cry for change. But this highly emotional political environment couldn’t be a worse time to put the issue on the ballot.”

Council members had scheduled the district discussion Tuesday night, along with considerations of two separate issues: proposals to limit council members to two terms of four years each and to restrict political donations to $1,000 per person per election.

Council members declined to take any action on the issues for 30 days in the absence Tuesday of Councilman Bob D. Simpson.

While residents expressed little feeling for the term limits and contribution issues, their differences were pronounced on the plan for dividing the city into distinct voting districts. Councilman William D. Ehrle first suggested placing the issue on the November ballot.

Esther Poole, a central city resident, was one of several who rose as an advocate for change. She said district elections would bring government closer to residents.

“The way it is set up now, I don’t know who my council person is,” Poole said. “I want my representative to live in my neighborhood, to know my needs. People work hard. They have needs, and they need to pay attention to them.”

Fellow central city resident Keith Olesen chastised Poole’s views and recommended that the city not tamper with the current system.

“If she doesn’t know who her council persons are, that’s her fault,” Oleson said. “Anything that restricts who I can vote for, that’s not right.”

The districting proposal drew support from the homeowners’ group Anaheim HOME and a representative from the American GI Forum, a veterans group.

Councilman Tom Daly, although not an announced opponent of the issue, issued a warning.

“How would you feel if a project in your district was approved over the objection of your home district council member?” he asked. “Then you wouldn’t have any recourse. It would be a tyranny of the majority imposing its will on your district.”

”. . . Every time we have an issue come before us now, geography almost never comes into play,” he said.