Advertisement

Secession Bill Faces Bleak Options in State Senate

Share
TIMES STAFF WRITER

The state Senate leadership on Friday appeared to hand Assemblywoman Paula L. Boland a Hobson’s choice between having her San Fernando Valley secession bill killed by inaction or having it killed by an unfriendly committee.

The move came Friday afternoon from Senate President Pro Tem Bill Lockyer, a Hayward Democrat who heads the Rules Committee.

Lockyer refused to set a hearing for Boland’s bill until she revises it to clarify who would pay for a secession election. If Boland refuses to amend her bill, it could die when the current legislative session ends. If the Granada Hills Republican agrees to amend it, the bill could end up in the hands of a committee headed by a senator who has vowed to kill it. Boland was unavailable for comment, but her spokesman Scott Wilk accused Lockyer of “making a straw-man argument” to hold up the bill.

Advertisement

Former U.S. Rep. Bobbi Fiedler, a strong supporter of the measure, dismissed Lockyer’s action as “an excuse.”

“They’re just doing anything they can do to obstruct it,” Fiedler said.

Still, after an impressive string of victories in the Assembly and Senate, Boland’s measure, which would remove the Los Angeles City Council’s veto power over any secession request, appears to be in jeopardy.

Until now, she has successfully fended off numerous attempts to tie the bill up with amendments. It emerged from the Senate Local Government Committee relatively unscathed. The only attached amendment called for any secession vote to coincide with the next general election, a cost-cutting move.

Instead of clogging her bill with a second proposed amendment, Boland agreed to join her bill with another, unrelated bill to which the amendment dealing with costs would be added.

She later backed away because the second amended bill would mean certain death for the measure by placing it under the jurisdiction of the Senate Elections Committee, chaired by Sen. Richard Polanco (D-Los Angeles).

Polanco is one of several Los Angeles-area legislators who are opposed to the Valley secession bill, calling it unfair to non-Valley residents of Los Angeles. He has vowed to end its march through the Legislature, saying the one amendment already attached to the bill--to consolidate any secession election with a general election--is already enough to bring the measure to him.

Advertisement

A week ago, Lockyer called that a close call. But he apparently feels more strongly about the second proposed change.

That one, proposed by Sen. Quentin L. Kopp (I-San Francisco), would change a Government Code section dictating that the city of Los Angeles would have to foot the bill for a secession election that failed. That was unfair, Kopp said--the area trying to secede should pay.

Ironically, after learning later that his proposal could ruin the Boland bill’s chance of passage, Kopp released her from the pledge.

“I don’t like my ingenuous curiosity leading to unforeseen or subverting consequences,” Kopp wrote on June 27.

But Lockyer said Kopp cannot release Boland from the deal.

“She made that commitment to the committee,” Lockyer said in an interview.

Secretary of the Senate Rick Rollens made the announcement on Lockyer’s behalf Friday, after the two met about Rules Committee hearings on Sunday and Monday.

“ ‘Let me know when they find their other [bill],’ ” Rollens quoted Lockyer as saying. “He thinks it’s an integral part of AB 2043”--the secession bill.

Advertisement

In a telephone interview Friday, Kopp adamantly disagreed with Lockyer, saying Boland is not bound to press ahead with his proposal after he withdrew it.

“There’s no such rule,” Kopp said.

Polanco, meanwhile, appears to have Boland in his sights.

“If she complies [with Lockyer], it will come to my committee,” Polanco said. “If she doesn’t, she’s fumbled on the 1-yard line.”

Polanco also noted that while Boland is “running in place,” the legislative clock ticks. The Legislature is expected to recess after next Friday for three weeks. Though there is time to pass legislation after the break, waivers must be granted for some matters to be heard.

Advertisement