We Need Consensus, Not a Mayor vs. Council Slugfest

Out of all the confusion about charter reform versus secession from the City of Los Angeles, one point of agreement seems to have coalesced: More of the decisions that affect people’s lives should be made in their own neighborhoods.

A new city charter is the key.

Fixing what’s wrong with Los Angeles need not be a contentious, divisive, acrimonious process. It does not have to take years and drain millions of dollars from the public treasury. We should not have to fight with the mayor over an initiative petition drive and argue with the council about the selection of the charter revision board. To be successful, we need consensus between the council and the mayor, at least in the beginning of the process. Our obsolete, cumbersome, 71-year-old city charter needs to be rewritten. But the major policy issues must be discussed at the beginning of the process, not near the end. The major issues must be publicly aired to give the public a real say as the charter is being written and not just the chance to vote it up or down.

Here are the main issues:

* Neighborhoods feel cut off from the central government and neglected in the decision-making process. We must increase the influence of neighborhoods and their participation in government. Let’s make it easier for city information to reach them. This approach mirrors the time-honored American tradition of the town hall, founded in colonial days as a response to the people’s fear and distrust of their government.

* The mayor has the responsibility for making the city run smoothly but too little clout to make it happen. The people should be able to hold the mayor accountable if he does not manage the city effectively. At the same time, the mayor needs the authority that goes along with that responsibility. Department managers should report to the mayor.

* The City Council doesn’t focus on the city’s major policy issues but rather gets bogged down in the daily minutiae. The responsibility for handling matters such as accepting gifts to the city or waiving fees could easily be handled by city departments. Then the council could focus on the city’s big policy problems like crime, jobs and the quality of life.

* Citizens continually report that they get the runaround when dealing with city departments. Too much time on the phone yields too few results and bureaucrats pass the buck. There needs to be a place where the buck stops. We should create a Department of Citizen Services and Complaints to function as a people’s advocate, steering citizens through the confusion of City Hall and getting their problems solved. Such a department would end the perception by certain neighborhoods that other parts of the city receive special treatment. Everyone would be on an equal footing.

* City Council members today each represent more than 220,000 people, one-fifteenth of the city’s 3.6 million residents. When our city charter was approved by the voters in 1925, Los Angeles had about 700,000 residents. In addition to the tremendous population growth, government has become more complex. Study needs to be given to expanding the City Council so that each member has a manageable number of constituents and so each citizen gets more attention.

Much of city government is paralyzed by regulations locked into the charter. The resulting gridlock allows our elected officials to excuse their inability to solve problems by blaming the charter. Change the charter and accountability and better service for the people would result.