On Council, the Whines Flow Freely

Los Angeles City Council members don’t think Mayor Richard Riordan fights fair.

They’re right. But council members, who like to portray themselves as pillars of good sportsmanship, don’t fight fair, either. So when Riordan one-ups them in the below-the-belt derby, they whine . . . and whine . . . and whine.

That’s what happened to the council recently in the epic battle between Riordan and the lawmakers over whether Los Angeles should have a new City Charter, or constitution, to replace the one that was adopted during President Calvin Coolidge’s Roaring ‘20s administration.

*

The charter, which was designed for simpler times, gives a tremendous amount of power to a 15-member council, a minority of whom come from the heart of suburban Los Angeles, the San Fernando Valley. As a result, the Valley justifiably feels shortchanged.

Another weakness is the increasing refusal of council members to deal with citywide problems. That’s because the council members have trouble seeing beyond the boundaries of their own districts. That turns debates into a frustrating and fruitless clash of parochial interests, too often influenced by the back-room clout of big contributors, such as lobbyists and their clients.

At the same time, the charter gives the mayor of Los Angeles far less authority than is possessed by the chief executives of other major cities. “The mayor has literally no power,” Riordan complained to me the other day. “I can theoretically remove heads of departments [with council approval].” But “department heads spend their lives schmoozing and pork-barreling City Council members.” As a result, Riordan said, he, or any mayor, has a hard time firing anyone.

Los Angeles, he said, needs “a more functional government. The new charter must have checks and balances. Now, the power is all with the council. There is no way of stopping someone from going off the deep end.”

This council, as has been the case with its predecessors, gives lip service to reform but in the final analysis appears to think the current charter is OK. But the members got a big scare recently when Valley political leaders--including some big shot campaign contributor types--started talking secession from a city government they viewed as indifferent to San Fernando Valley concerns.

Secession legislation was defeated in Sacramento. But the rebels, including Riordan confidant and power attorney Dave Fleming, began pressing for a charter that would give the Valley more clout. Riordan, whose political base includes the Valley, joined in, and added his own agenda--more power for the mayor.

Riordan proposed a charter commission appointed by both him and the council. But council members, having won in Sacramento, went back to pretty much ignoring Valley discontent. Nor did they want to give the mayor more authority, even though a new charter would not take effect until after Riordan leaves office. So last week, the council turned down the Riordan proposal.

Riordan then fell back on his Plan B, dipping into his own sizable bank account and going full speed ahead with a petition drive, already organized, to put a measure creating a charter reform commission on next April’s ballot.

That’s when the mayor is running for a second term. Think of the campaign: “Vote for Riordan. Vote for Reform. “

*

The council has been surprised and stung by the petition drive. It shouldn’t have been a shock. Reaching for a checkbook to attain a political goal is pure Riordan. That’s how he successfully backed the city term limits ballot measure a few years ago. That’s what he did when he ran for mayor.

Recovering from their surprise, council members have begun to fight back behind the scenes. Backed by bureaucratic legal beagles, they began to poke holes in Riordan’s election plan: California has never had a voter initiative creating a city charter reform commission. It’s “new,” a concept that makes the council uncomfortable. Maybe we ought to call the whole thing off.

Riordan counterpunched. Once again dipping into his private treasury, he went out and hired one of the best election law experts in the state, attorney Chip Nielson, to mount a preemptive strike against the council. Using Nielson’s research, Riordan sent a letter to the city’s chief election officer, City Clerk Mike Carey, asking him to go to court to clear up potential controversies over the initiative.

Riordan obviously did this to forestall council foes from going to court themselves before the election and obtaining an injunction that would throw the initiative off the ballot. In other words, shoot the snipers before they can can shoot you.

Riordan and his team still haven’t gathered the 200,000 or so signatures needed to put the measure on the ballot. But with his money, he can hire enough petition gatherers to accomplish the task.

The council is outraged. Members, who lap up special interest campaign contributions, are angered by the thought of a man using his own money to fight for what he believes in. This, they imply, is undemocratic, un-L.A. If the mayor keeps this up, we could lose our reputation as the city where nothing gets done.