L.A. ELECTIONS / BALLOT MEASURES : Plan to Simplify Firing of Executives Faces New Test : Charter Amendment 2 reincarnates a measure that has failed four times in 15 years. But this year may be different with mayor’s fund-raising efforts on its behalf.

A plan to make it easier to fire Los Angeles general managers--rejected by voters four times in previous incarnations--faces another test at the polls next week, and supporters hope that the Midas touch and political vigor of Mayor Richard Riordan may finally help the measure overcome 15 years of rejection.

Charter Amendment 2, the most prominent of eight measures on the April 11 ballot, would exclude the city’s 30 top executives from the protection that has made it illegal to fire most of them without good cause and without a series of public, quasi-judicial hearings.

Similar proposals have been defeated four times in the past 15 years--in 1980, 1983, 1984 and 1993.

But 1995 may be different.

First and foremost, Riordan is making sure that this year’s campaign for Charter Amendment 2 is well-funded.

Riordan has personally solicited contributions for the effort, said Rick Taylor and Steve Afriat, the political consultants running the campaign.

Two weeks ago, for example, Riordan co-hosted a $2,500-a-plate fund-raiser at the Hancock Park home of Council President John Ferraro that drew a blue-chip crowd of corporate and executive givers.

“It was a power dinner with the mayor and council president,” said one observer, explaining part of its attraction.

According to a recent finance report, the Los Angeles Motor Dealers Assn. gave $25,000; contributing $10,000 each were Arco, Ernst & Young, Riordan & McKinzie PAC, Robert A. Day, Southern California Edison and O’Melveny & Myers; and the long list of $5,000 contributors included Tutor-Saliba, Warner Brothers PAC, Kaiser International and Western Waste Management.

The Southern California District Council of Carpenters PAC and the campaign committee of L.A. County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky also gave $25,000 each.

A $1,000-a-head cocktail party at Paramount Studios also helped the campaign, which had grossed $303,000 as of last week.

Under the measure, the mayor would be able to fire any of the 30 general managers, as long as he had the approval of a majority of the City Council. But Noelia Rodriguez, Riordan’s press secretary, said the mayor “has no hit list assembled” of general managers he intends to sack if the measure is passed.

Advocates say the measure will make the city’s top executives, many of whom earn more than $100,000 a year, more accountable by bringing corporate-style personnel practices to City Hall.

But opponents, led by Councilman Nate Holden, maintain that civil service protections were enacted to prevent the cronyism and corruption that comes with investing too much power in politicians.

Afriat, who helped run the 1983 campaign to approve a similar measure, said this year’s campaign is the best-funded effort to date.

Before the campaign is over, 2 million pieces of literature favoring Charter Amendment 2 will have gone out, with the likeliest voters receiving perhaps as many as five separate mailers.

The big difference between the 1995 incarnation and its 1993 version is that the current model would affect existing general managers--not just future ones.

Despite that, the city’s General Managers Assn. has stayed out of the campaign this year, as have the city’s municipal employee unions. In the past, these groups formed the backbone of opposition to such measures.

“We decided not to do anything to fight this measure this year,” said Randall Bacon, president of the city’s General Managers Assn.

However, if the measure is approved the association will seriously consider filing a lawsuit to block the application of the charter amendment to existing general managers, Bacon said.

Only five department heads would be exempt from the measure: the chief of police, the chief legislative analyst (the City Council’s top adviser), the executive director of the City Ethics Commission, and the heads of two bureaus in the Public Works Department.

Although Charter Amendment 2 is the most controversial, other measures on the April 11 ballot also have stirred interest.

Charter Amendment 1 would revamp how the city buys goods and services, a system that critics say is overly burdensome and ends up costing the city about $34.7 million a year.

For example, the proposed reforms would allow the city to negotiate contracts with bidders, instead of simply awarding them to the lowest possible bidder, a system that can ignore quality and value. Under the measure, provisions would be dropped that now bar the city from joining with other government agencies, such as the county, to make joint purchases and save money through volume discounts.

Charter Amendment 3 would establish an inspector general position in the LAPD to investigate complaints of misconduct filed against officers. The measure would implement a recommendation of the Christopher Commission, the blue-ribbon panel that exhaustively reviewed the LAPD in the wake of the 1991 Rodney G. King beating.

Among those signing the ballot argument opposing Charter Amendment 3 are former Los Angeles Councilman Ernani Bernardi and Peggy Rowe Estrada, leader of a police support group. Charter Amendment 4 would increase from five to seven the number of members on the governing board of the City Employees Retirement System. The other measures on the ballot are largely technical in nature and have drawn no formal opposition. They are:

* Charter Amendment 5, which would allow the City Employees Retirement System to pay its administrative costs out of its pension fund.

* Charter Amendment 6, which would allow City Employee Retirement System members to name a trust or charity as beneficiary of their pension benefits. Now, these employees can only have a person as a beneficiary.

* Charter Amendment 7, which would place a cap on the size of the pensions that could be paid to top executives of the Fire and Police departments so that the pension system for these retirees complies with recently enacted federal laws.

* Charter Amendment 8, which would allow the city’s Airport Department to establish separate fund accounts to handle revenues and expenses for each of its half a dozen airport facilities.