Council Votes to Keep Power to Revise Charter in Its Hands

The Los Angeles City Council, making clear its unwillingness to give up its authority on the volatile issue of government reform, voted Tuesday to create a citizens panel with only advisory powers to overhaul the city charter.

Amid emotional debate over who speaks for the citizens, the council rejected a competing proposal by Councilmen Mike Feuer and John Ferraro that would have given a citizens panel the power to put reform ideas directly on the ballot.

Instead, the council voted 10 to 3 to support a proposal by Councilwoman Ruth Galanter to appoint a 21-member panel that would recommend reform measures, with the council retaining the power to revise or reject them.

Mayor Richard Riordan, who has locked horns repeatedly with the council, criticized the vote, saying true reform can only come from a citizens group with independence from the council.

As an alternative, he vowed to continue to personally finance a petition drive that could lead to the election of a 15-member citizens panel that would have the power to put reform measures directly on the ballot.

“I found today’s City Council action to be a vote of no confidence in Angelenos,” he 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 will probably veto a $300,000 budget that 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.

Riordan would need to collect more than 350,000 voters’ signatures in his petition drive to create a citizens panel. If successful, the measure would be placed on the April ballot, accompanied by the names of candidates interested in serving on the panel.

Although most council members agree that some reform is needed, many have questioned Riordan’s motives, saying his elected panel may be a veiled attempt to increase his authority in City Hall.

In the past few weeks, Riordan had suggested that he might support the Ferraro proposal if he and the council could agree on the members of the appointed panel. Under such an agreement he would have ended his petition drive.

But the compromise effort was effectively killed with passage of 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 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, who has been harshly critical of the mayor recently, said she is not concerned about whether the passage of her proposal killed a compromise attempt with Riordan.

“That’s his privilege,” she said of his petition drive. “What we do and say won’t stop him.”

Galanter’s proposal was initiated in 1990 but had remained idle due to estimates that it could cost between $1 million and $2 million. Under her plan, the council will appoint 15 members, the council president will appoint two, the city attorney will appoint one, 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.

But the latest attempt to launch a complete overhaul of the charter came in response to secession threats by San Fernando Valley residents who say the city government is inaccessible and unresponsive.

Still, during a two-hour debate Tuesday, 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,” Councilman Mike Hernandez said.

Most council members, however, argued that some charter reform was needed, but they 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,” Councilman Joel Wachs said.

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, who called Riordan’s signature-gathering drive “blackmail.”

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

Despite trying to reach a compromise with Riordan, 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.

He said he still holds out hope that the advisory commission and Riordan’s elected commission may be able to agree on some charter reform ideas.

“‘At least we will have some reform,” he said.

Feuer said that although the citizens commission will only have advisory power, he too is optimistic that some reform can result from the council’s action.

“From my standpoint, some really good things have happened,” he said.