Charter Reform Advisory Panel Gets Council OK

If Los Angeles city government is to be reformed, the City Council decided Tuesday, it should be up to the council to decide which ideas for change will make it before the voters.

The council voted to create a 21-member citizens’ panel that would suggest new ways to run city government, from whether the mayor should have more power to whether neighborhood groups should decide local budget issues.

But that panel will not have the power to put its proposals on rewriting the City Charter directly to the voters, council members decided. Instead the council will decide which ideas to put on the ballot.

The 10-3 vote drew immediate criticism from Mayor Richard Riordan, who vowed to continue his personal financing of an initiative drive that would create a 15-member citizens panel elected by voters and empowered to put reform measures directly on the ballot.

“I found today’s City Council action to be a vote of no confidence in Angelenos,” the mayor said. “It shows more than ever the need for a charter reform commission that is independent of elected officials.”

A Riordan aide said the mayor is also likely to veto a $300,000 budget item the council appropriated for the citizens reform group, forcing the lawmakers to either override his veto with a 10-vote majority or find private funding for the panel.

Although most council members agree that some reform is needed, many have wondered aloud whether Riordan’s push for an elected panel may be a veiled attempt to increase his authority in City Hall.

In the past few weeks, Riordan and council President John Ferraro have discussed a compromise under which Riordan would end his signature drive if he and the council could agree on the members of an appointed panel with the power to put reform measures on the ballot.

But the compromise effort died with Councilwoman Ruth Galanter’s proposal to create an advisory panel.

UCLA political scientist Xandra Kayden predicted that without unity among city leaders, there is little chance that any meaningful reform will be implemented.

“I think we have killed charter reform for another generation,” she said. “This was the best shot at it.”

Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, a senior associate at the Claremont Graduate School, agreed, saying, “When voters are confronted with a variety of options on the ballot, they tend to vote no.”

Kayden also predicted that the dispute between Riordan and the council will only worsen their deteriorating relationship.

“This is a lose-lose situation all around,” she said.

Galanter first proposed the panel in 1990, but her suggestion remained dormant because of estimates that it could cost $1 million to $2 million. Under her plan, the council will appoint 15 members, the council president will appoint two members, the city attorney will appoint one member, and the city controller and the mayor will appoint three members.

The 71-year-old charter acts as the city’s constitution, outlining the balance of power in City Hall. But reformers say it was crafted during a bygone era to diffuse power and prevent corruption in City Hall. They say the charter now prevents city leaders from being accountable and effective.

Over the past 20 years, the 680-page document has been amended on a piecemeal basis. Term limits for elected officials, for example, were reforms adopted by voters.

The latest attempt to launch an overhaul of the charter came in response to secession threats by San Fernando Valley residents who said the city government is remote and unresponsive.

Still, during a two-hour debate, council members argued over whether the city’s governing system needs an overhaul, and if so, who can best represent the people to do it.

“This is the cleanest large city in America,” said Councilwoman Jackie Goldberg, referring to the relative lack of corruption in the city.

Almost all of the council members seemed uneasy with the debate, particularly because it forced them to either accept the argument that city government is dysfunctional or to argue that the government operates well and needs no reform.

“By appointing these members, we are almost conceding as a council that we are not doing our job,” said Councilman Mike Hernandez.

Therefore, most council members argued that some charter reform was needed but wrangled over who speaks for the citizens and who is in the best position to propose reform.

“I feel no system can succeed unless the people feel it comes from them,” said Councilman Joel Wachs.

At one point, Councilwoman Rita Walters suggested having the entire council act as a charter reform panel.

“All of us represent all areas of the city,” she said.

Other council members complained that they were forced to act in haste on charter reform because of the secession threats and Riordan’s signature-gathering drive.

“What I’m concerned about is what brought us to the point,” said Councilman Nate Holden, calling Riordan’s signature-gathering drive “blackmail.”

In the end, Councilmen Wachs, Mike Feuer and Marvin Braude voted against Galanter’s proposal.

Ferraro said he voted for Galanter’s motion because it was evident that the council was not going to support the proposal he and Feuer offered.