Prescription for Charter Reform: 2 Aspirin

The other night, I dropped by the grocery store and noticed somebody selling something by the door. I headed for the other entrance.

Foiled again. This door was manned too. Up for sale was some sort of political idea. “We’re trying to lower your taxes,” the man said. For the price of my signature, I could claim a share of this very popular but vague notion.

Later, my assumptions were confirmed. The petition pertained to Mayor Richard Riordan’s prescription for reforming the city charter--or, to be more precise, for deciding how to decide just who should do the reforming. I asked enough questions to learn that the man doing the mayor’s bidding wasn’t a bona fide concerned citizen donating his precious time. No, he worked for a company called Voter Revolt. Thar’s profit in them petitions. The way he was hustling, he must get paid by the signature.

I didn’t offer my autograph. It’s not that I’m against charter reform and not that I’m deeply troubled by the way Mayor Riordan wields his checkbook. Mildly troubled, maybe. With Zorro it was the sign of the Z, with Riordan it’s the $.

But that wasn’t the reason. No, I didn’t sign up--not yet, anyway--because whenever I read about the politics of city charter reform, whenever I do a little research, my head hurts. It makes me nostalgic for the recent past, longing for the simplicity of Assemblywoman Paula Boland’s secession bill.

Now there was an issue that made choosing sides a breeze--unless you happen to be a Valley politician who fears the wrath of secession-minded activists.

When Councilman Mike Feuer took the admirably principled stand that the power to divide Los Angeles belonged to residents throughout the city, not just one part, he was bashed by secessionists and editorial writers of my second favorite L.A. daily. (Funny, but in the end, Daily News editorials acquiesced to the advisability of a citywide vote, albeit as a matter of political expediency, not moral desirability.)

Yes, the Boland bill was a lot of fun, with all those references to the American Revolution and the Civil War. It was entertaining and a bit surreal.

But charter reform isn’t fun at all, in part because there’s nothing bogus about it. There has long been wide agreement that the 71-year-old charter--essentially, the city’s constitution--is overdue for a major overhaul after some 400 piecemeal amendments over the years.

The general idea is that the government should be organized to give Angelenos more local control in their neighborhoods and to streamline the workings of City Hall. Reformers point to the Los Angeles Police Department as a prime example of how overlapping authorities create confusion and conflicts. The LAPD is overseen by its chief, by a police commission of appointed citizens, by a council committee, by the whole council and by the mayor. Is this any way to run a city?

Reform efforts would be launched only to drift into obscurity. But with Riordan in office and the secession bill brewing, Feuer and Valley activist David W. Fleming teamed this summer to propose yet another reform effort. The idea was to create a 21-member citizens panel appointed by the mayor and council to ponder and propose charter reforms that would ultimately be submitted directly to the voters, without the need for council and mayoral approval. “Unlike secession, reform can unite Angelenos,” the mayor declared.

Alas, the city attorney’s office submitted an opinion that the law would not allow such a procedure. Fleming then proposed the initiative drive, recruiting Riordan as its primary sponsor. The initiative proposes the creation of a 15-member charter reform panel that, unlike the City Council, would be elected at large, not by district.

Later, the city attorney would reverse its position on the initial plan, citing a provision in the state election code. But by then, the initiative drive had its own momentum.

So this week, Feuer found himself in council chambers, trying to revive the original concept in front of a City Council that has become increasingly angered by the mayor’s power plays. In the end, the council revived and adopted a plan for another kind of 21-member panel first introduced by Councilwoman Ruth Galanter in 1990. The difference is that, under the Galanter plan, the panel would be merely advisory, with its recommendations subject to the review of the council.

It’s easy to understand the majority’s rationale. They were elected, after all. They answer to the people. Why should they abdicate power to an appointed panel?

But, from the other side, why would any citizen want to spend months proposing charter reforms only to run the risk of having the work undone by the council?

Feuer voted no, along with Joel Wachs, a leading proponent of neighborhood advisory groups, and Marvin Braude, a longtime advocate of charter reform. Feuer, who typically speaks in careful, measured tones, later blamed acrimony between council members and the mayor for standing in the way of meaningful reform. Many council members have grumbled about the style he developed in years as an investment capitalist. His checkbook politics is one recent example.

And so the other day I asked Mike Feuer, should we give up on the possibility of harmony in City Hall? Should I have signed the mayor’s petition?

“Ummmm.” There was a long pause. Then he said, “Not yet.”

Why not?

Feuer answered with a question: Would an election be the best way to establish a charter reform panel? During the next mayoral election, in addition to the mayor’s race, we might be asked to create a panel and then choose 15 names from a list that would be, well, how long? Scores? More than 100? The mayor would probably have his slate and Tom Hayden would probably have his.

Labor unions would have theirs and homeowners groups might have others. Would you end up with a panel that reflects the city? Would it be a group that could work together? Would this initiative open Pandora’s box, inciting the racial, geographic and economic tensions in Los Angeles?

“Reform can unite Angelenos,” Riordan said. But is this the right prescription?

So here’s to distant hope that maybe, just maybe, the mayor and the City Council can try again. Perhaps they can play nice this time. Maybe all they need to do is pretend that charter reform is as important as, say, a new downtown sports arena.

Meanwhile, I need to find some aspirin.

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.