Officials’ Fight Leaves Reform Drive Stalled

The fate of Mayor Richard Riordan’s initiative drive to create a citizens governmental reform panel remained in limbo Monday as city and county election officials quarreled over who should decide if the effort has succeeded.

The debate adds another hurdle to the already legally troubled effort to create a citizens panel to rewrite the 71-year-old charter that acts as the city’s constitution.

Time is of the essence for Riordan because all measures that will appear on the April ballot must be written and approved by the City Council by Jan. 3, according to city bylaws.

Backed by Riordan’s political clout and $400,000 of his own money, Riordan’s supporters collected 304,000 signatures to put a measure on the April ballot, asking voters to create the reform panel.

The reform effort was sparked by threats of a San Fernando Valley secession and complaints that City Hall is dysfunctional and out of touch.

But the petition has run into a number of snags. The latest problem is that neither City Clerk J. Michael Carey nor County Registrar-Recorder Conny B. McCormack is willing to certify whether the measure qualifies for the ballot based on a random sample of the signatures.

“It’s like watching a bureaucratic tennis match,” said an angry David Fleming, a Studio City attorney who helped Riordan launch the petition drive.

The problem arose when Carey asked the county registrar-recorder to check a 3% random sample of the signatures to see if the initiative qualifies. Under a state code that created the power to form an elected reform group, the county is responsible for checking the signatures.

To qualify based on a random sample, election officials must find that 71% of the signatures are from registered voters.

On Friday, the registrar-recorder released a report that indicated that the petition fell 57 signatures short of reaching the 71% threshold.

However, the petition would qualify if the city were to accept 419 signatures that were gathered by people who were not registered to vote in the city. Under city law, those signatures are invalid. Under state law, the signatures are valid.

That’s when the current squabble began.

The registrar-recorder declined to decide which rules to abide by, saying it is up to the city clerk to make such decisions and to certify the petitions.

On Monday, Carey wrote to McCormack, arguing that it is her “duty” to certify the petition. The city is paying the county $1.30 for every signature that is checked.

“‘Since you have not certified as to the sufficiency of the petition, we are asking you to do so as expeditiously as possible,” Carey wrote.

McCormack fired back a letter on Monday, saying that it is not her duty but instead “it is the function of the city clerk, as the city’s election official, to certify the sufficiency of the petition.”

Both sides claim that they are acting under state election code.

Riordan’s former chief operating officer, Mike Keeley, who is acting as legal consultant for the petition drive, accused city officials of “playing games” with the initiative.

He argues that the city should count the 419 signatures in question and put the measure on the ballot in April.

“The law is clear and we believe the court will agree with us,” he said.

The matter may be discussed in federal court today during a hearing on other legal matters that plague the petition drive.

Riordan and his supporters sued the city to clarify legal questions about when and how the election of the reform panel will take place.

The City Council, which fears that Riordan’s charter reform effort is a power grab, is fighting the lawsuit, arguing that the legal issues should be cleared up by the state Legislature and not a federal judge.

Riordan is also under pressure to put his measure on the ballot because the council has created its own advisory reform panel, which has already met twice and is in the process of hiring an executive director.

Further delays will only give the council’s panel time to establish itself, making it harder for Riordan to justify a second committee.