Road to Charter Reform Paved With Mayor’s Gold

Ever since the current city government was created under a 1925 charter, Los Angeles mayors have complained about a structure that gives the lion’s share of power to the 15-member City Council.

From Fletcher Bowron in 1939 to Sam Yorty in 1969, mayors have sought more authority, saying the work of government is too often bogged down in parochial disputes among council members.

Mayor Richard Riordan is no different--with one notable exception: He has vowed to put up to $400,000 of his personal wealth into trying to shift power to the mayor’s office.

In an unprecedented move, Riordan--the venture capitalist whose fortune is estimated at $100 million--is underwriting a petition drive to create an elected citizens panel that would rewrite the 71-year-old charter.

In addition, Riordan aides say the mayor plans to bankroll a slate of candidates for the panel and may tap business associates to fund the panel’s two to three years of studies.

Riordan’s petition drive has ignited a debate in and out of City Hall on the role of the mayor and the council.

His supporters say Riordan’s motives are pure, that reform is sorely needed and that a more powerful mayor is necessary because the council spends most of its time fighting petty jurisdictional disputes.

On the other side, critics say the mayor is using his considerable fortune to buy personal political power and in the process subordinate an unfriendly council. They say a wealthy mayor using his money to get his own way raises serious ethical questions.

“It has the same awkwardness that all interventions of money in politics have, which is that when you have money you have a louder voice,” said Mark Moore, a professor of public policy at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government.

UCLA political scientist Xandra Kayden, who has been critical of Riordan’s efforts, is more blunt: “If he can’t rule by consensus, is this another way he may rule?”

Riordan rejects criticism that the effort is a veiled power grab. Instead, he describes it as an attempt to clarify the lines of authority in City Hall so that voters can hold one city leader accountable for administrative duties.

“Government by committee has never worked, in business or in the public sector. In this case, the committee is 15 council members,” Riordan said recently.

He has repeatedly noted that even if the panel’s reform proposals are adopted by voters sometime in the next three years, he can only benefit from the changes at the tail end of a second term.

“What should I be using my money for, buying yachts or jets?” he said.

Although most council members and political scientists agree the charter should be updated, many are uneasy or downright angry that Riordan’s money is playing a major role.

“Every day he is trying to increase his power,” said Councilman Nate Holden. “He has taken his money and used it in the worst ways.”

Said Raphael Sonenshein, Cal State Fullerton political science professor, “The notion of a mayor personally financing an initiative like this is totally new territory.”

Sonenshein, who has written about Los Angeles politics, also worries that charges of a Riordan-financed power grab may taint a much-needed government reform campaign.

“Charter reform is delicate enough without one side trying to win over the other side,” he said.

Not all view Riordan’s efforts in a sinister light, however.

Councilwoman Jackie Goldberg has harshly criticized Riordan’s petition drive but says she doesn’t believe Riordan is motivated by a lust for power. She said the mayor truly wants to reform the way city government operates.

“There is no evil intention,” she said. “I have found that the mayor very often feels that what he is doing is reform-based. Whether I feel it’s reform-based is another issue.” Nonetheless, Goldberg and other council members said they also fear Riordan may use his personal wealth in the future to fund another initiative drive when City Hall’s political process gets in his way.

“I think that is the unspoken fear of a lot of people,” she said.

Others in City Hall say Riordan’s reform efforts are understandable considering how difficult it is for the City Council to lead when it is often mired in debates over how to distribute services, among other matters.

Councilman Marvin Braude, a 31-year council veteran who has seen several administrations come and go, said the council can be very divisive and too often wrangles over administrative matters that he said should be the purview of the mayor.

“The council is always in a predisposition to dominate local administrative matters, and I think that still happens,” he said. “The major difference is that this is an active mayor, more active than previous mayors, and he is interested in change.”

The city was established with the mayor serving as the administrative head of the government while the council is empowered to create legislation and make policy.

But to ensure that one branch of government does not overpower another, the 1925 charter distributes power to various commissions and panels and requires the mayor to get council approval to hire and fire department heads.

State Librarian Kevin Starr said the charter was originally designed to create various positions of power so that the ruling business class could run the city independently of elected officials.

He said the so-called oligarchy wanted to make sure that the city’s power base was always stable and not susceptible to changes brought about by elections.

Because of the charter, power as practiced in the mayor’s office has often been a matter of personality.

For example, Sam Yorty had difficulty getting the council to support his legislative agenda and complained often that the charter diluted his authority. He supported two charter reform packages in 1970 and 1971, both of which called for increasing the mayor’s administrative power over city departments. Both initiatives were narrowly rejected by voters.

On the other hand, Mayor Tom Bradley, Yorty’s successor, worked closely with the council, in part because he was a former councilman who shared the viewpoints of many of its members.

He was known for building alliances on the council to get important legislation adopted, including a downtown redevelopment project and the city’s rent control ordinance.

“He spent a lot of time trying to establish relationships with each council member,” said Ray Remy, who acted as Bradley’s chief of staff from 1976 to 1984 and now heads the Greater Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce.

Riordan has not enjoyed as much success with the council. Riordan, a Republican businessman who has tried to bring a corporate mentality to City Hall, has repeatedly clashed with the liberal majority of the council.

In 1992, the mayor’s powers were whittled even more when voters approved Proposition 5, which allows the council to override decisions made by commissions that previously answered only to the mayor.

Several council members, as well as Riordan allies, say Riordan’s initiative drive is evidence of his impatience with the political process and his desire to make changes quickly.

“After three years in office, he has realized that he can’t fix City Hall with the old rusty tools that he has,” said David Fleming, an influential Studio City attorney who has teamed up with Riordan on the petition drive.

To succeed, Riordan’s campaign needs the signatures of 197,000 registered voters by Thursday. To ensure that all the signatures are valid, the campaign is aiming at collecting up to 300,000.

Campaign supporters said the mayor has provided “upfront” funding to launch the campaign and hopes to be reimbursed by private contributions in the future. But Riordan has declined to say how many contributions have been collected.

Despite the rhetoric on both sides, a compromise was nearly reached as recently as last month. At that time, the council and the mayor were close to reaching an agreement to create an appointed reform panel with the power to put ideas directly on the ballot.

But by that time, Riordan had already launched his campaign and the council rejected the compromise proposed by Councilmen Mike Feuer and John Ferraro, saying they resented the pressure put upon them by Riordan.

Instead, a council majority voted to create a 21-member appointed panel proposed by Councilwoman Ruth Galanter. Under Galanter’s plan, however, the council retains the power to reject any reform measures proposed by the panel before putting them on the ballot.

When the compromise was rejected, Riordan publicly criticized the council and vowed to continue with his campaign.

Bill Wardlaw, an influential attorney and longtime Riordan friend, said that regardless of the criticism, Riordan believes that charter reform will give Los Angeles a more effective government.

Riordan’s motivation, Wardlaw said, is that he wants to leave City Hall with the legacy that he helped create a streamlined government.

“He would like to look back in 2001 and say that he has left this city in substantially better shape than he found it,” he said.