PERSPECTIVES ON CHARTER AMENDMENT 2 : Yes: An End to Fiefdoms and Feuds : A new mayor can’t bring needed changes if entrenched city bureaucrats ingore his wishes with impunity.

Charter Amendment 2 on Tuesday’s Los Angeles ballot goes to the core of the city’s political tradition--a tradition premised on the notion that politicians can’t be trusted, professionals make better decisions and we like things just the way they are, thank you very much.

The measure takes 30 top managers of city departments out of Civil Service protection, giving the mayor--with City Council approval--the right to appoint or fire them. It is not a strange idea. The President and governor do it. The chief executive officers of just about every organization has the same authority. It is one way of providing for coordination, accountability and bringing new leadership into government. We expect the mayor to be in charge of city administration, but under the Los Angeles Charter, the mayor lacks the authority to carry out that mandate. If there ever was a time we needed to act together and set the government on a leadership path into the next century, it is now.

Taking department managers out of Civil Service protection is one of the most consistent reforms called for in the Charter, even though it has been defeated every time it comes up for a vote. Mayor Richard Riordan argues that it fails because there has never been a campaign for it, but there is probably more to it than that.

Two-thirds of city voters--the white plurality, who, among other things, are the older residents--reflect the progressive culture that designed the Charter in the early years of the century. In the current climate, even though Riordan was their candidate for mayor, many homeowners, who were the backbone of the no-growth movement of later years, are distrustful of the city’s plans to revise the planning process. They want the Civil Service to resist. They trust city employees because the services the city provides are relatively cheap, consistent and usually of high quality. And whatever history of corruption we have in the last half-century, very little of it comes from city employees.

It is hard to explain why, in those circumstances, taking general managers out of civil service protection is better for the city. It is hard to explain the frustration that elected officials have with managers who can afford to ignore them--now, because of term limits, waiting them out even more easily. It is hard to explain that coordination depends on managers meeting together, but independent fiefdoms and personal feuds can make that impossible (around the country, people were incredulous when it was revealed that Mayor Tom Bradley and Police Chief Daryl Gates hadn’t spoken for years).

Taking department heads out of Civil Service protection does not mean they will be fired wholesale, without reason, or for “political” motives of retaliation. When Civil Service protections came in during the latter half of the 19th Century, there were no protections in the private sector. Today, with unions, collective bargaining and a considerable body of both court decisions and legislative law, there are major safeguards against arbitrary and capricious behavior by bosses. In the public sector, there is also the protection of the press and public opinion.

Nor will taking top managers out of Civil Service open the gates to corruption. There is a substantial body of ethics law in place--and a watchdog agency to oversee its implementation. And the vast majority of employees will still be protected by Civil Service and all the other job protections available to everyone else.

Still, when we elect a new mayor we expect change. The competition out there is tough and the resources to respond are limited. Our reputation has been tarnished by natural and unnatural disasters.

There are a lot of problems that will not be cured by the success of this Charter amendment. It will not guarantee leadership, but it will make it easier for Richard Riordan and his successors to govern the city. We need him to do just that. We need a major Charter overhaul, and this is an important first step.