San Diego County Elections : Measure to Save Hilltop Cross Wins Approval : Reform: City would transfer Mt. Soledad monument to private hands under Prop. F.

A ballot proposal to save the Mt. Soledad cross was headed for overwhelming approval Tuesday night, as were a number of other reform measures aimed at accountability on the part of the San Diego City Council and other top city officials.

Longtime City Atty. John Witt faced a surprisingly strong challenge from former City Councilman Bruce Henderson, who was voted out of office during a district election last November.

If projections hold, the city will be permitted to transfer the public property on which the Mt. Soledad cross sits to a private, nonprofit group, which, city officials said, effectively saves it from being removed.

Perhaps no issue in the city generated more public outcry in recent years than U.S. District Judge Gordon Thompson’s ruling last December that the Mt. Soledad cross in La Jolla and another on county property on Mt. Helix near La Mesa are religious symbols and should not be permitted on public property.

Civil libertarians hailed Thompson’s decision, asserting that the presence of the crosses on public land offended non-Christian religious groups. But those in favor of the cross said it was primarily a war memorial rather than a religious symbol.

A Times Poll last month showed that 69% of those surveyed agreed that the property for the 43-foot cross should be transferred to a private corporation.

The measure, called Proposition F, needed a two-thirds vote for approval, unlike six others dealing with city issues.

Proposition A, which would limit the amount of time the mayor, city attorney and City Council members could serve in office to two consecutive four-year terms, also was being approved by a large margin.

Proposition B, which would eliminate the council’s authority to fill its own vacancies by appointment, was comfortably on its way to approval. Proposition E would require all persons proposing to do business with the city to disclose the names of principals involved if the transaction would result in a contract, lease, or franchise with the city. Voters were approving it by an overwhelming count.

Proposition G, an advisory measure, asked the public to decide whether $170 million in half-cent tax money collected since 1988 should be given to the council to hire more police officers. The tax was ruled illegal by the California Supreme Court last year. It was also being approved by voters.

Proposition C, the measure to place the power to reapportion council districts every 10 years in the hands of an independent commission, was on its way to being approved.

The apparent approval of term limits, a new redistricting commission, a prohibition on the council to fill vacancies and the requirement that top city officials be ordered to make disclosures about important city business suggests that voters are seeking more accountability on the part of the mayor, City Council and other city managers.

Moreover, Henderson’s strong showing against Witt, the city attorney since 1969, may be part of a growing dissatisfaction with long-term incumbents.

Henderson’s entry in the race was the first formidable challenge to Witt in nearly 20 years, and Henderson relished the attack. He used press conferences and organized debates to portray Witt as a bumbling career politician who had stayed in the job too long and had little idea of what legal matters needed to be pursued.

Rather than retaliate, Witt simply kept the focus on his 23-year resume, reminding voters that his office had been successful in killing a proposed merger last year between San Diego Gas & Electric Co. and Southern California Edison. Witt also boasted of keeping the San Diego Padres in town when its owners threatened to move the team to Washington, D.C.

Although it was hard to gauge Witt’s exact contribution in both cases, the city attorney had more tangible accomplishments, such as creating an effective child abuse-domestic violence unit and rewriting election reform laws.

But, throughout the campaign, Witt found himself vulnerable in one area that was difficult to explain: his role in a secret $100,000 settlement to a city planner who had charged the planning director with sexual harassment.

Not until the tail-end of the campaign did Witt produce a letter from former City Manager John Lockwood taking responsibility for failing to inform the City Council of the payout. The letter specifically said that Lockwood rejected Witt’s recommendation that the mayor be told.

Once the letter was produced, Henderson dismissed it as a ploy for Lockwood to take the blame now that he is no longer city manager. Former City Planning Director Robert Spaulding is suing Witt for allegedly promising to protect his interests and then dropping his legal defense when the issue exploded at City Hall.

Although Witt was reluctant to strike back at Henderson, others were doing it for him, questioning his qualifications.

A grass-roots committee called “Ban the Bruce,” which had organized last year to help Valerie Stallings defeat Henderson in his bid for reelection to the 6th District, regrouped with a different membership but the same purpose: to make sure Henderson did not hold public office again.

The same criticisms that dogged Henderson on the council, such as his perceived insensitivity to minorities, gays and lesbians and his tendency to be dogmatic and bombastic, followed him into the city attorney’s race.

Although Henderson insisted he was running for the office only after seeking out a number of potential challengers to Witt, others believed that the former councilman couldn’t stand to be out of the limelight for very long.

Indeed, Henderson showed up at a number of council meetings after his election defeat to speak on a wide range of issues, most notably the sexual harassment settlement.

The failure of city officials to notify the council about the settlement led to one of Tuesday’s ballot propositions--Proposition D--which would require the city manager, city attorney and city auditor to inform the City Council of “all material facts or significant developments relating to all matters under the jurisdiction of the council.”

Voters were approving it by a wide margin.