End the Game of Chicken on City Charter Reform

The usually arid discussions on reforming the unwieldy Los Angeles City Charter have now deteriorated into the sort of vituperative debate that more typically characterizes fights over the size of the police budget or decisions to reduce hours at city libraries.

Frustrated with the limits on his ability to shape city policy, which he traces directly to the 680 pages of rules that comprise the charter, Mayor Richard Riordan is personally financing a reform effort. If Riordan is successful in getting the issue on the April ballot, city voters will be asked to elect a charter reform commission whose recommendations will also go directly before the voters for approval. But there is a risk that direct election of commission members could skew the panel--and hence its proposals--toward a specific agenda and toward some neighborhoods or social groups and not others.

Council member attitudes toward charter reform range from downright hostile to thoughtfully enthusiastic. Those who do support reform have formulated an alternative. They want to convene a separate panel, composed of appointees of the council, the mayor, the city attorney and the controller. The panel’s recommendations, however, would need council approval before voters could get a chance to consider them, a requirement that could doom the recommendations, however worthy, to the round file.

In no small measure, both plans are fueled by the petulant animosity that clouds relations between Riordan and council members on so many other issues; this despite the fact that city term limits mean that neither the mayor nor most current council members will be in office when--or if--any proposed charter changes take effect.

The major result of these competing reform proposals to date has been stalemate or confusion, or both.

As usual, the city and its residents are the big losers. Charter reform is no mere parlor game for city policy wonks and political foes. The current charter is dysfunctional. It dates from the progressive reforms of the 1920s; the need then was to inoculate Los Angeles against the sort of mayoral corruption that rocked other cities. The Los Angeles City Charter has done that by diffusing power between the mayor and the council and by establishing council members as, in effect, mini-sovereigns of their respective realms. Seventy years later, that diffusion means the city responds slowly and awkwardly and far too many decisions depend on support from every council member. The charter requires the involvement of multiple city agencies to, say, build buildings or manage the fire department, but too often puts no one person, commission or agency in charge.

That’s why the municipal game of chicken on charter reform needs to end. The mayor should agree to the more balanced composition of the reform commission as proposed in the council plan. By the same token, the council should agree to put that commission’s recommendations directly before the voters, as the mayor wants. Thoughtful charter change can happen. The city’s residents would be the biggest winners. Pullquote: Both plans are fueled by the petulant animosity that clouds relations between Riordan and council members on so many other issues . . . as usual, the city and its residents are the big losers.