City Needs Plan for 21st Century

Los Angeles is America’s city of the future. But when it comes to the structure and operation of government, Los Angeles is mired in the past.

Our city’s 71-year-old charter--our local constitution defining the relationship between citizens and their government, allocating power among elected officials and prescribing ground rules for the bureaucracy--reflects values at odds with contemporary demands for responsive, decisive, accountable government action.

Our citizens see this in the absence of structures granting neighborhoods more say in local decision making. They see it when the goals of an efficient and reformed police force run head-on into competing directives and priorities of the multiple officials who oversee the Police Department: the police chief, the Police Commission, the mayor, the Public Safety Committee of the City Council and the council itself. And they see it when city departments don’t build a police station or library on time and on budget, because there is no one accountable to say no to cost overruns or to dictate smooth coordination.

It is time to reinvent the way we govern ourselves in Los Angeles. Replacing our antiquated, 700-page charter with one that provides a road map for the city’s future will go far to getting us on track again.

When the current charter was adopted by voters in 1925, the population of Los Angeles was 25% of its current size. It was a mostly white, middle-class city, where visions and values, especially among those in power, varied little. As a result, civic leaders were content to craft a charter dictating that a small group of their peers make decisions downtown and set the city’s course.

Intent on ridding City Hall of corruption, the drafters wrote a document that diffused power throughout government. With many decision makers responsible for each key issue, it was assumed that inordinate (and potentially corrupting) power would never be held by any one official.

This vision may have served a purpose in 1925. But in 1996, as the country’s most diverse city, Los Angeles needs a charter that is not premised on the city being run by a small group of like-minded elites. Neither is an intricate system of checks and balances on power necessarily the highest priority. Instead, Angelenos seek a system of government that delivers services quickly, efficiently and fairly; that holds officials accountable and that aggressively solicits and values citizen input.

Recognizing that a new charter is necessary to achieve these goals, there have been recurrent calls from throughout Los Angeles to establish a Citizens Charter Commission. I agree that sweeping charter reform is long overdue and have introduced a proposal, seconded by six of my council colleagues, to create such a commission.

Charter reform could have enormous impact on everyday life in Los Angeles, and only makes sense if the public feels a sense of ownership in the effort. I have proposed a 25-member commission to be selected from throughout the city, with its president chosen by representatives of business, labor, grass-roots organizations, education, the justice system, elected officials and other sectors.

*

The commission would elicit views from a cross-section of the community on Los Angeles’ most critical problems, as well as possible solutions. The commission would then develop proposals and hold interactive community workshops in every part of the city. Also, the establishment of neighborhood councils citywide, as proposed by Councilman Joel Wachs, could provide an ongoing structure for community involvement in the development of the new charter.

When the commission had completed its work, the council would be able to recommend revisions or amendments, which the commission could accept or reject.

It has been suggested that the commission’s proposed new charter should be placed on the ballot, with no changes by the council. The city attorney advises, however, that a current council cannot dictate what a future council can and cannot do. Still, I believe the commission can succeed in igniting broad participation in its efforts and build a powerful constituency for fundamental change that the council could not ignore. And if the council and commission were to disagree fundamentally, the city attorney states that the commission could place its proposal on the ballot through a petition signed by 15% of the registered voters.

*

Last week, a number of San Fernando Valley business leaders suggested a variation on this theme, seeking voter approval to create an elected charter commission that could place a new charter on the ballot directly. This alternative also should be examined as we pursue the shared goal of charter reform.

There are many reasons to undertake a comprehensive reform of city government. Nevertheless, charter reform has been narrowly characterized by some as merely about whether the mayor or council should be given more or less power. A new charter would, no doubt, shape the mayor-council relationship. But so much more is at stake than that--everything from redefining the role of neighborhoods in decision making and resource allocation to streamlining city procedures and service delivery.

This is a critical moment for our city. We face a daunting array of complex urban challenges amid growing disaffection with City Hall. In addition, the existence of term limits means that elected officials now in office are nearing the end of their terms and do not have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

Los Angeles deserves a framework for a city government that is as streamlined, responsive, accountable and accessible as possible. A new charter, reflecting our deepest contemporary principles, could--and should--be that guide.