Compromise on Valley Secession Bill Rejected

SACRAMENTO — Civic leaders attempted to forge a compromise on the stalled San Fernando Valley secession bill Wednesday, but Senate President Pro Tem Bill Lockyer turned down their offer of a limited citywide vote as “undemocratic.”

State Sen. Tom Hayden (D-Los Angeles), meanwhile, is also trying to broker a deal that would salvage the legislation that has been bottled up in a Senate committee for weeks.

“It’s the old case of is something better than nothing?” said Hayden, a possible mayoral candidate. “I think it probably is.”

But as of late Wednesday, the opposing forces remain at loggerheads, with Lockyer expected to discuss the bill at the Rules Committee meeting today. The legislation by Assemblywoman Paula L. Boland (R-Granada Hills), which would remove a stumbling block to Valley secession, was initially listed on the Rules Committee agenda Tuesday afternoon, then later removed.

But Lockyer press secretary Sandy Harrison said the lawmaker still expects the bill to be discussed at the meeting.

Lockyer said earlier this week that he would amend the bill to include a citywide vote and a state-funded study of the ramifications of Valley secession. The next day, Boland said she rejected the amendments, but was open to discussion.

While Boland was not in touch with Lockyer Wednesday, Harrison confirmed that Lockyer was approached by Valley secession bill proponents seeking a middle ground between the two positions.

The local leaders proposed a limited citywide vote that would only apply to requests from areas of 1 million or more population and then could only be triggered by gathering signatures of 20% of residents outside the secession area.

Boland was not involved in the offer and was not consulted, said her chief of staff, Scott Wilk. “It was a rogue proposal,” Wilk said.

One of those involved in the compromise proposal was Jeff Brain, co-chairman of Valley VOTE, a group formed to back the bill. He said a limited citywide vote was an acceptable middle ground--but only if Boland concurred.

“It puts the onus on the area leaving to create a fair detachment plan so as to encourage the remaining area not to want to vote on it,” Brain said. “And it protects the area that’s being left.”

Lockyer disagreed.

“The notion of forcing opponents to get the right to vote against something is wrong,” Lockyer said through a spokesman. “It’s undemocratic.”

Richard Close, the other co-chairman of Valley VOTE, said he feels strongly about working toward a compromise measure.

“We need to get this thing out of the Legislature this year.”

Hayden also said it is important to pass a bill that could stimulate reform in Los Angeles.

“If they reject a citywide vote, it’s understandable, but the whole package goes down the drain,” Hayden said. “A citywide vote is certainly a heavy barrier, but it’s easier to deal with than a veto.”

Boland was unavailable for comment, but Hayden said Boland remains undecided on a course of action. Her dilemma, as Hayden sees it, is to decide “if she can retreat without being called a waffler or to participate in a negotiated settlement.”