Bradley Calls for Limits on Terms of City Officials

Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, in a surprise announcement that provoked questions about whether he will run for reelection, on Thursday proposed to “permanently restructure local government” through an April ballot measure that would set term limits for elected city officials and strip top city bureaucrats of Civil Service protection.

Bradley, who spelled out the plan in a letter to City Council members, made no mention of whether he plans to seek an unprecedented sixth term next year. Even if he decides to run, however, aides insisted that the move would not be inconsistent with his proposal for two-term limits.

The proposal is be introduced today to the City Council, which earlier this week voted down two other term limit proposals. Some council members--including a potential mayoral rival--applauded the Bradley initiative but others called the proposal hypocritical and questioned the mayor’s motives.

“It’s curious that Bradley is proposing term limits while serving his fifth term,” Councilman Hal Bernson said. “Obviously, this must be part of his plan to run for another term.”

Councilwoman Joy Picus, who is considering running for mayor in the 1993 election, was more blunt.

“Regardless of the mayor’s proposal,” Picus said, “I think anyone who initiates such a proposal and runs for a sixth term has a real problem.”

Bradley refused to answer questions about his proposal. But mayoral spokesman Bill Chandler, reiterating Bradley’s intention of announcing his political plans in September, said: “If the mayor chose to run again, he could champion the cause of reforms. The mayor could run again on a platform that he will not rest until broad reforms are approved in this city.”

Deputy Mayor Mark Fabiani pointed out that even if Bradley does campaign again “he would be running under the current system, not the reformed one he is proposing.”

Essentially, the measure would limit the mayor, the City Council, the city attorney and the city controller to two consecutive four-year terms. Current officeholders, however, would be allowed to serve an additional two terms.

The measure also would remove up to 500 general managers, division heads and their assistants from Civil Service protections that critics say amount to a lifetime job guarantee.

If approved by the City Council, both reforms would be presented as a single measure in April, 1993, when the mayor’s office and eight council seats will be up for grabs. The measure would require approval by a simple majority of the city’s voters.

On Thursday afternoon, five council members said they would support placing the plan on the ballot. They are Mike Hernandez, Mark Ridley-Thomas, Joel Wachs, Ernani Bernardi and Michael Woo, who was expected to introduce Bradley’s motion to the full council. Councilman Nate Holden, a likely mayoral candidate, was undecided.

Speaking out against the proposal were Bernson, Picus, Ruth Galanter and council President John Ferraro.

Council members Richard Alatorre, Marvin Braude, Joan Milke Flores, Rita Walters and Zev Yaroslavsky could not be reached for comment.

The Bradley proposal drew an unexpected endorsement from Los Angeles attorney and possible mayoral challenger Richard Riordan, who has been circulating petitions to qualify his own term limits initiative for the April ballot.

“I believe this is a stroke of statesmanship by a man who I believe does not have aspirations to run for another term,” said Riordan, adding he would drop his own plan if Bradley’s makes the ballot. “It takes a real burden off me. I’ll be happy to work hard on this proposal.”

The mayor’s proposal came two days after the City Council rejected two proposed term limit charter amendments.

One, brought by Wachs, was intended to short-circuit Riordan’s petition drive. Some city officials complained that Riordan’s petition was actually an attempt to raise his name recognition among voters in preparation for a run at the mayor’s office.

But Bradley, in the letter sent to council members and followed by a news release Thursday, suggested that Riordan’s petition did not go far enough.

“Approving term limits for elected officials without simultaneously restructuring the Civil Service system . . . would essentially shift the decision-making power to appointed general managers,” Bradley said in the letter. “This proposal will guarantee that the entire city government--including non-elected bureaucrats--remains responsive to the will of the people.

“Regardless of their performance, the city is prevented from dismissing a top department official under almost any circumstance,” Bradley wrote. “On several occasions we have asked voters to remove this protection from the City Charter, and in each case we have been fought by employee unions fearful of this change in policy.”

Chandler, Bradley’s spokesman, said that last month’s overwhelming voter approval of Charter Amendment F--the police reform measure--buoyed the mayor’s hopes for winning voter approval of an even more sweeping change in city operations.

Bradley’s proposal follows a protracted and divisive battle to remove former Police Chief Daryl F. Gates from office. Although he did not mention Gates by name, Bradley in his letter to the council said, “History has shown that once a problem arises with a department leader the city is hard-pressed to remove the employee from service.”

Bradley’s proposal can be expected to trigger bureaucratic opposition, said Phil Henning, assistant general manager of the city Personnel Department.

“The principal argument against it is that it would make people puppets of elected officials . . . because they would be beholden to them,” Henning said. “But we support it because we think Civil Service tends to insulate department managers too much. High-level managers should be subject to removal if they are not making normal progress.”

But Henning noted that similar proposals to remove department heads from Civil Service protection have been rejected by voters three times over the past 12 years.