‘Boland II’ Needs a Good Script Doctor

“Jaws” was a huge hit. “Jaws II” was a dud.

“Rocky” won three Academy Awards. “Rocky II” won squat.

With “The Godfather, Part II” as a famous exception, Hollywood sequels seldom measure up to the originals. The same may not be true of Sacramento sequels, but this critic is willing to make a prediction:

“Boland II,” as newly elected Assemblyman Tom McClintock (R-Northridge) calls his recycled secession bill, is looking like another grade B production.

Oh, like the original bill introduced by termed-out Assemblywoman Paula Boland, the revived legislation will find an audience and make it cheer. But Boland II won’t do as well as the original--not unless McClintock puts it through a major rewrite.

So far, McClintock seems unwilling to do that, having extolled the “pristine” nature of the legislation. Apparently, McClintock thought Boland’s original bill was perfect.

Since I’ve promised in print to literally eat crow on the day the San Fernando Valley succeeds in seceding from the city of Los Angeles, perhaps it’s not in my best interest to volunteer analysis and advice. Then again, secessionists will no doubt read these words with suspicion. So here goes.

McClintock & Co. must figure out how to overcome two political obstacles the original bill didn’t face. One is obvious, the other less so.

The obvious one is the fact that Democrats have regained control of the Assembly. When Boland got her bill through the lower house, Republicans like her were in control and the vote fell along partisan lines. Goodness knows that the merits of the legislation meant less than party loyalty.

Less obvious, it’s worth remembering that the Legislature’s Latino Caucus lobbied strongly against the Boland bill. Now the Latino Caucus is larger than ever, and one of its members, Cruz Bustamante (D-Fresno), is Assembly speaker. Speaker Pro Tem Sheila Kuehl, whose district encompasses much of the West Valley and the Westside, is also on record opposing Boland II.

So the chances of the bill navigating the Assembly are very slim. And if it does, the Democrat-controlled state Senate is still waiting. That’s where the bill died last year, after Boland refused not-unreasonable amendments suggested by Senate Majority Leader Bill Lockyer, a Hayward Democrat. Boland, termed out of her Assembly seat, lost her race for the Senate, but Lockyer is back as the most powerful member of the upper house.

So what are McClintock and the Valley VOTE activists and other would-be revolutionaries to do?

They should do the right thing. If they really believe that their cause is righteous, they should approach it in a righteous way. They should take the high road. They should rewrite the bill.

Advocates of the original legislation liked to pretend the bill merely sought to eliminate the City Council’s veto power over a secession bid. In fact, the Boland bill had a more insidious aim--to give the Valley a vote, and deny that right to the rest of the city.

So Boland II likewise envisions an election that would divide the city of Los Angeles in two, but leave the power to decide on one side of the divide. It was comical how Boland would defend her bill as promoting “democracy” and “self-determination” when in fact it did the opposite, treating the vote as something reserved for a privileged region, not a right shared by all. Do Boland and McClintock seriously think that such an election could survive a constitutional challenge? If it came to that, would they care to make a wager?

Secessionists may have a hard time swallowing this, but if they’re serious in their quest, they should insist that any effort to break up Los Angeles should require a citywide vote. By doing so, they would eliminate the chief political, legal and moral objections to their methods. Activists from the Valley to San Pedro often argue that secession would be good for all of Los Angeles, not just the region seeking to break away. So why not allow all of Los Angeles to decide?

If secessionists acknowledged this, the City Council would have a hard time voicing an objection without appearing self-serving. Mayor Richard Riordan, who flip-flopped repeatedly on the Boland bill, could endorse the new, improved legislation without looking silly. And the state Legislature would find it difficult to object.

Most important, they would acknowledge the rights of their fellow Angelenos and perhaps even build support should such an election come to pass. As it is, Boland II is designed to polarize, to divide Angelenos into “us” and “them.”

And if McClintock did the right thing, he’d benefit as well. He wouldn’t feel obliged to call this reheated legislation “Boland II.” If he proudly put his own stamp on it, the media would start reporting on the “McClintock bill.”

Then again, McClintock might have other reasons. Maybe he senses that this bill is destined to go nowhere. Maybe that’s why he’s content to call it Boland II.

Scott Harris’ column appears Tuesdays, Thursdays and Sundays. Readers may write to Harris at the Times Valley Edition, 20000 Prairie St., Chatsworth 91311. Please include a phone number.