New Charter, Wider Mayoral Power Sought : Government: Coalition cites ailing economy and need to heal riots’ wounds as reasons to consolidate decision-making. The 1925 document has been revised more than 400 times.

With Los Angeles about to get its first new mayor in 20 years, a high-powered coalition of civic activists is organizing an assault on the dusty, 892-page document that many blame for the city’s leadership void.

The City Charter, instituted in an atmosphere of civic “betterment” in 1925 and revised more than 400 times, is the blueprint for a complex system of local government that hampered Mayor Tom Bradley’s efforts to govern and could tie the hands of his successor, these activists and others say.

Although the diffusion of power among the mayor, City Council and 51 city commissions has long been seen as a problem, would-be reformers say the need for a new charter is clearer than ever in light of the city’s ailing economy and the need to rebuild after the riots.

Proponents of rewriting the charter say that increasing the powers of the mayor would give the fragmented metropolis a leader with the ability to govern the city as a whole--not a mosaic of 15 council districts. They say it also would establish clearer lines of responsibility and accountability.

Los Angeles’ mayor cannot simply fire top city bureaucrats--as became apparent during lengthy struggles to oust controversial department heads ranging from Police Chief Daryl F. Gates to arts czar Fred Croton to General Services Manager Sylvia Cunliffe. The chief executives of New York, Chicago and much smaller Houston can dismiss top bureaucrats instantly--and often do--under civic structures that make it clear that the mayor is elected to run the city and is the one who will be held accountable by voters.

But in Los Angeles, there are 15 other bosses--the members of the City Council, each elected from disparate neighborhoods and often pushing parochial agendas. And under the charter, virtually every one of the mayor’s actions, from shaping the city’s $3.6-billion budget to appointing more than 240 commissioners, requires approval from these council members. The mayor is entitled under the charter to only one staff member--a personal secretary. Any additional staff must be authorized by the council.

The informal charter reform group would like to change all that. Those studying charter reform include political scientist Xandra Kayden, former city commissioner Dan Garcia, homeowner activist Bill Christopher, attorney Bob Hertzberg, Don McIntyre of the Central City Assn., former assistant City Clerk Bill Ashdown, urban planner Marc Futterman, and Kenneth Chawkins, an executive of Coro Southern California Inc., a nonprofit leadership training institute.

“The thing we were afraid of 70 years ago--a strong mayor--is something the city really needs right now,” Chawkins said. “The way that Bradley has been able to be strong is that he is a very persuasive person. . . . He informally wields a lot of power. But with a new mayor, that may not be true. They may need some structural change that would allow them to do what they need to do.”

The first City Charter was drafted in 1889. It was thrown out in 1924, when voters approved the current document, which went into effect in 1925.

Originally 96 pages long, the charter was the creation of a Los Angeles in which orange groves dotted the San Fernando Valley, the Central Library had yet to open its doors and railroads ran a powerful political machine.

The Progressive Movement reformers who heavily influenced the new charter wanted to weaken the Southern Pacific railroad’s grip on City Hall as well as rid the Police Department of graft and corruption.

When the new charter was drafted, “the idea was to have the power diffused so there would be no corruption,” said Los Angeles Planning Director Con Howe. “They succeeded in diffusing the power, all right. But so diffused, it is almost impossible to get something done.”

Reforms under study here include giving the mayor the same kind of powers enjoyed by other big city mayors--most notably the authority to fire top city bureaucrats by stripping them of Civil Service protections.

Another key reform proposal would eliminate or reduce the role of the city’s 51 citizen commissions, which share power with the mayor and council.

“Los Angeles has got this goofy tripartite system,” said Steven Erie, a UC San Diego political history professor who has studied Los Angeles government. “It’s really the boards and commissions that are the great anomaly and the source of mayoral weakness.

“The problem is that it does not vest responsibility for all of the decisions made by the city’s bureaucracy in a single individual or a small group, such as the City Council,” Erie said. “It divides and hides accountability.”

The commissions, whose members are appointed by the mayor subject to City Council confirmation, oversee everything from the animal shelters to the vast Port of Los Angeles. About a dozen commissions have powers to govern departments, such as the airports, harbor, public works and water and power--with minimal involvement by the mayor or council. Other commissions, such as the Planning Commission, merely make recommendations to the mayor and council.

A third reform possibility is enlarging the City Council from 15 to 50 members, with some of the newcomers elected citywide in an effort to lessen the parochialism of the council.

Opponents of giving the mayor more power say it could lead to the return of the bad old days. “The city is pretty well run. We have an honest city government. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” said City Council President John Ferraro.

Although they have taken no position on the reforms under discussion, labor unions in the past have fought Civil Service changes, arguing that they could politicize the city bureaucracy.

Another argument against charter change is that, by lessening the role of commissions, it could remove an important forum for citizen input into decision-making.

The final say will rest with voters, who in recent years have sent mixed messages about whether they want to strengthen the mayor’s powers.

They approved a police reform measure last year giving the mayor and City Council greater authority to fire the police chief.

But they also approved in 1991 a charter amendment diluting the mayor’s power by giving the council the authority to review actions of the city’s commissions on a case-by-case basis.

“It would be very difficult to pass a reform charter,” said Ferraro, who was involved in unsuccessful efforts to win voter approval for a new charter in 1970 and 1971. “Whatever you do, you’re going to be stepping on someone’s toes or changing somebody’s power, and they’re going to go out and fight it.”

The reform group is undeterred by such arguments; its leaders expect to soon begin drafting a new charter. They hope to gather 150,000 voter signatures to put the charter proposal on the 1995 ballot.

Even if the charter is changed, the power of the mayor will remain limited because so many problems extend beyond the city’s boundaries. For instance, the schools are run by an independently elected board and the county has its own powerful board that oversees welfare programs, health services and jails.

Restructuring government’s ability to respond to regional problems is also worth studying--after the charter is revamped, said Garcia, the former city commissioner involved in the charter reform movement. “One step at a time,” he said.