Decision ’93 / Los Angeles County Elections : BALLOT MEASURES : Council Seeks More Power to Discipline General Managers

Seeking more authority over the city’s general managers, the Los Angeles City Council is sponsoring a measure on the June 8 ballot that would strip top bureaucrats of Civil Service protection and make it easier for the council to discipline uncooperative or unproductive managers.

The measure would either force career bureaucrats to be more productive or, from the opposing view, infuse City Hall’s decisions with more politics.

“Charter Amendment 3 is what we need to move into the 21st Century with a city government that is efficient, effective and responsive,” supporters of the measure wrote.

“Let’s run our city like a private enterprise and insist that top managers either perform up to high standards or get someone else to do the job,” says the ballot argument written by council members Joy Picus, Zev Yaroslavsky, Mike Hernandez, Marvin Braude and Mark Ridley-Thomas. Donald F. McIntyre, president of the Central City Assn., is also backing the proposal.

Two dissenters, Councilmen Nate Holden and Hal Bernson, contend that the council is really attempting to interfere in city departments. Civil Service rules allow employees to be fired only under certain circumstances and after public hearings, they said.

“The only reason for wanting that power is the desire to have the contracts, franchises, zone changes, etc., that general managers control under political thumbs,” Holden and Bernson wrote in their ballot argument against the measure.

The measure would not apply to Police Chief Willie L. Williams or Chief Legislative Analyst William R. McCarley. Williams is covered by Charter Amendment F, the police reform measure approved last June that gives City Hall more power to remove the chief and limits the chief’s tenure to two five-year terms.

Also on next month’s ballot is a proposal to allow the city to grant business tax reductions or exemptions in redevelopment areas or enterprise zones.

Supporters say the measure, Charter Amendment 1, would enable the city to boost development in those areas most in need.

Currently, all those engaged in the same type of business must pay the same rate of business tax, regardless of location. The financial impact of exempting some businesses from taxes is unclear, officials said, without first knowing how many businesses would be granted exemptions.

“This is an important measure to help stimulate business growth in areas where economic development is most needed,” according to a ballot argument written by supporters--including Council President John Ferraro; Councilmen Ridley-Thomas, Richard Alatorre and Michael Woo, and Peter V. Ueberroth, former co-chairman of Rebuild L.A.

There was no argument submitted against the measure, but the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce’s Board of Directors has voted to oppose it.

“This measure is questionable public policy,” Chamber President Ray Remy said. “It allows selective business tax exemptions or decreases on a case-by-case basis in a manner which we feel allows for too much discretion and opportunities for unequal treatment. We believe Los Angeles city business taxes should be lowered for all businesses.”

Another measure, Charter Amendment 2, would enable city employees’ pension funds to invest in a broader array of stocks.

It is supported by Gary Mattingly, general manager of the city’s Department of Pensions; Oscar Peters, general manager of the City Employees’ Retirement System; City Administrative Officer Keith Comrie, and the heads of the fire and police unions. There is no ballot argument against the measure.

Currently, the City Charter allows employee pension funds to invest up to 70% of their money in stocks and bonds. Most of those investments must be in securities that are registered on a national securities exchange--such as the New York and the American stock exchanges--and that have paid a dividend in each of the preceding five years.

The charter allows 25% of the investments to be in securities that are not on a national register and do not have such a history of paying dividends. The ballot measure would increase this 25% figure to 50%, boosting the number of growth stocks available for investment.

The measure would apply to the Fire and Police Pension System and to the City Employees’ Retirement System.

All three measures require a simple majority for passage.