Mayor Calls, but He Still Doesn’t Connect

“I’m Losing You” is the title of a new Hollywood novel I haven’t read and probably never will. But it’s a swell title. I read somewhere that it was inspired by the phrase the cellular phone users often find themselves uttering.

Last Thursday morning, I received such a call from a very busy man. From the sound it was obvious that Mayor Richard Riordan wasn’t in his office. He confirmed this and said he was heading back to City Hall after a morning tennis date with Jack Kemp.

Now, there are worldly journalists who converse with presidents and premiers and the occasional military strongman. Then there are us local yokels, who are just tickled to wind up on the mayor’s to-do list. I had never received a call from the mayor before. Then again, until that morning, I had never described Riordan as talking out of three sides of his mouth.

There was no anger in his tone. The mayor simply wanted to clarify, once again, his position on the political machinations aimed at dividing Los Angeles into two cities, a position that for weeks has struck many people, on both sides of the issue, as political triplespeak.

He tried to explain his position. He said he was against secession but for “self-determination,” which he believed the Boland bill promoted--at least in its original form. I was trying to follow along, mumbling “uh huh” and “I see” and at one point politely assuring him that he’d helped clarify matters.

That is, upon reflection, only partly true. As the mayor drove into the City Hall garage, he was losing me.

*

The phone signals faded after a conversation of 10 or 15 minutes. This was long after he made a somewhat jarring analogy that still has me scratching my head.

“It’s like saying, ‘I’m against abortion but will fight for a person’s right to choose.’ ” And that, he noted, happens to be his position on abortion.

Now, I’ve thought, read, talked and written plenty about secession and the legislation that would make it easier. I’ve pondered Boland’s peculiar notion of “democracy” that held that it would be OK for a city to be split in two in an election that would deny a majority of its citizens any say in the matter.

Boland and other secession fans, such as my second-favorite Los Angeles newspaper, whine that the Valley is the victim of “tyranny” and liken their cause to the glories of the American Revolution. For months they had portrayed the bill’s purpose as the innocuous matter of removing the City Council’s veto power over a secession vote. Council-bashing is easy, of course. Never mind that these putative “tyrants” were democratically chosen in municipal elections in which, of course, all registered voters were free to cast ballots.

Now, Mayor Riordan’s performance in this dark comedy has left the audience wondering whether to laugh or cry.

A few weeks later, Riordan was saying he vehemently opposed secession, that it would be bad for the Valley and the L.A. that remained. But, apparently wary of offending Valley constituents, he did nothing to stop a bill that promotes that very idea. Why not nip it in the bud and concentrate on charter reform?

When Boland surprised everybody by getting her bill passed in the Assembly, Riordan nearly did the right thing. His office issued a press release stating the obvious--that the bill should be amended to replace the council veto with a citywide election. But in a span of 36 hours, he reversed himself a few more times, ultimately declaring himself neutral on the legislation. Confusion persisted, however.

Some days he’d be described as neutral and some days as a supporter of the Boland bill. In one memorable press report, he was described as a “supporter” who would neither lobby for nor against the bill. And don’t forget the fact that he is against secession. See what I mean by triplespeak?

This should have been a no-brainer for Riordan. All he had to think about is what Gov. Pete Wilson should do if he faced a similar quandary? Wouldn’t the governor object if only Northern Californians were seeking voting privileges? How would the mayor of Los Angeles feel about that?

But when he called me on the phone, he was making this distracting remark about abortion rights. Now that was something I’d have to think about.

*

Mayor Riordan called me back when he got to his office and said he didn’t think he’d answered my last question. I couldn’t remember what it was and thanked him for calling.

We had discussed other issues as well, such as his involvement in efforts to reform the Los Angeles Unified School District.

What most impressed me was the fact that he didn’t just say the school system needed more “accountability.” Everybody’s for that, Riordan noted, but people seldom define it. Riordan said that, to him, it means that if students, for example, aren’t learning to read, then the educators responsible should risk losing their jobs.

This businesslike attitude was one reason Dick Riordan got my vote three years ago. The more I learned about his years of thoughtful civic dedication--and the more that opponents made offensive suggestions that a white male couldn’t possibly unite post-riot L.A.--the more I thought this self-made multimillionaire Republican might do just fine.

That’s why his dodges and flip-flops have been so frustrating. When I asked him his opinion on Boland’s grudging decision to amend the bill to require a “double majority” citywide vote, Riordan said he opposed the amendment, because in his view that would deny “self-determination.”

It boggles the mind. The mayor of the nation’s second-largest city lets rhetoric that justly applies to people oppressed by genuine tyrants shape his opinion. He defines accountability, but what about his own accountability to the voters who elected him citywide?

He reiterated, however, that in the still unlikely event that a Valley secession election is someday held, he’d put his heart and soul into fighting it.

That’s good to know. The funny thing is, if an election were held under the original Boland bill--the bill Riordan says he supports--the mayor could campaign against and spend millions to defeat it.

The one thing he couldn’t do would be to vote against it. Remember, he lives in Brentwood.

Scott Harris’ column appears Tuesdays, Thursdays and Sundays. Readers may write to Harris at the Times Valley Edition, 20000 Prairie St., Chatsworth, CA 91311. Please include a phone number.