Angry Council Meeting Ends in Walkout

Seven members of the Los Angeles City Council stormed out of the council chambers Friday during a heated debate over a proposed new sewer rate system, breaking up the meeting and postponing a long-awaited vote on the matter until Tuesday.

The seven left just seconds before it appeared that they were going to be on the losing end of a vote to adopt a rate system that would increase fees for many of their constituents.

The new rate system would substantially reduce fees for most constituents of the remaining eight council members--a majority of the 15-member panel--who were expected to support the proposal.

Longtime City Hall observers said this was the first time in recent memory that a group protest by council members broke up a quorum.

The action angered some on the council.

“This is not how grown men and women are supposed to act,” said Councilman Joel Wachs, who was about to vote for the new fee system. “You tell your children not to act this way, not to just take your marbles and leave.”

Council members who walked out said later that they felt that Council President John Ferraro and the members who supported the new fees did not give opponents enough time to testify against it.

“I was angry that they did not have the decency to let me make my point,” said council member Jackie Goldberg, who walked out with council members Mike Hernandez, Mark Ridley-Thomas, Rita Walters, Nate Holden, Richard Alatorre and Rudy Svornich Jr.

In addition to Wachs, council members who remained were Ferraro, Laura Chick, Mike Feuer, Ruth Galanter, Richard Alarcon, Marvin Braude and Hal Bernson.

The new rate system, as proposed by Chick, would reduce sewer fees for most residents in the San Fernando Valley and the Westside while increasing them in other communities.

The change was proposed in response to years of complaints by Valley residents who say the current system for calculating rates is inequitable. Last month, two North Hollywood residents filed a class- action lawsuit against the city charging that the system is unfair.

*

The city cannot measure the exact amount of sewage generated by each home and instead relies on a formula that assumes that about 60% of the water entering a home ends up in the sewers as waste water.

But Valley residents argue that the assumption is wrong. Because of the larger lots in the Valley, residents there say that most of their water is used to irrigate landscaping and does not end up in the sewers.

In response, city sanitation engineers have come up with a new rate system that calculates the fee based on the amount of water used in a home during the wet, winter months, when little, if any, water is used to irrigate. The new formula would assume that 90% of that water is going into the sewers.

During the debate, the battle lines were drawn between those council members whose constituents would face higher fees and those whose constituents would get lower rates.

The proposal was especially aggravating for some council members from South and Central Los Angeles who were on the losing end of a vote last year to adopt a new water rate system that benefits Valley residents.

Supporters said the new system would correct an inaccurate system that has long forced residents with large residential lots to subsidize others.

“What we are talking about is making a new fee based on a fair and accurate system,” said Chick, a West Valley lawmaker. The monthly sewer fees for most of her constituents would drop from $17.51 to $15.68.

But several opponents said the new system would only benefit affluent residents who live on large lots at the expense of poor citizens.

*

After nearly 90 minutes of debate, Galanter made a motion to close off further debate and vote on the matter. That was when the drama began to build.

The vote was 8 to 7 to close the debate. As Ferraro instructed the city clerk to tally the vote on the new fees, Goldberg and Hernandez protested, saying they wanted to continue the debate.

But Ferraro pointed out that each council member had already had two, three-minute time allotments to speak. Under the council rules, he said no further debate was allowed.

The seven members who has spoken out against the fees then stood up and marched out.