If at First You Don’t Secede, Try Again With Better PR

The new Valley secession bill may read the same as last year’s measure, but backers are planning a marketing campaign aimed at making the sequel a bigger hit than the original.

Conventional wisdom, however, suggests it will be a hard sell, at least in Sacramento, where Democrats now control both houses.

Asked about the bill’s chances this year, Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica), the speaker pro tem of the Assembly, hummed a funeral dirge. She is one of those who opposes the bill as divisive.

But Richard Close, co-chairman of Valley VOTE, a group formed to support the legislation, thinks that in some ways the second time around may be better for the bill.

Planning is the key, Close said.

Last year, local supporters of the bill were always in the position of “reacting to what happened two hours before in Sacramento” where the battle over the legislation was waged.

The strategy now is to do more local groundwork ahead of time, not just in the Valley, but throughout Los Angeles, where the idea of more local control sounds appealing.

So does eliminating the City Council veto over attempts by an area to secede, which strikes some as undemocratic, even if they have no thought of seceding from Los Angeles.

To spread the word, a second group, the Alliance for Self-Determination, was formed and has been meeting at sites all over Los Angeles.

Although dominated by Valley homeowner activists, a recent meeting was attended by representatives from South Central Los Angeles, Venice, Hollywood, Benedict Canyon and West Los Angeles, just some of the communities involved.

The author of the new bill, Assemblyman Tom McClintock (R-Northridge) was also at the meeting. He said the way to get the bill passed is to gather grass-roots support. State legislators will take notice if their own constituents vocally support it.

Last year, state lawmakers from outside the Valley were the death of the measure sponsored by former Assemblywoman Paula L. Boland (R-Granada Hills), who was succeeded by McClintock.

The Boland bill came close to passage last summer. After it failed in the Senate, Boland amended it to include a citywide vote--the key objection to it by many Democrats. The amended bill was then killed in a state Senate committee at the behest of Senate President Pro Tem Bill Lockyer (D-Hayward).

Lockyer and Boland were embroiled in a political feud that turned personal when she attacked him as a tyrant.

“A lot of people [in Sacramento] had personal problems with Paula. Statements were made that upset some legislators,” Close said.

That won’t happen again, he said.

“We’re going to make sure this isn’t a political battle.”

A conciliation meeting with Lockyer is in the works, as are meetings with officials who represent the Valley in Sacramento and City Hall.

Most Valley assembly members and state senators support the bill.

The City Council, however, opposed it on a split vote, something that is not likely to change this year, said Council President John Ferraro.

“I just don’t think [secession] is a good idea,” Ferraro said. “Let’s try to be more productive and find out what the problems really are that exist in the city.”

Among the city’s most potent allies in Sacramento were Latino Sens. Richard Polanco (D-Los Angeles) and Charles Calderon (D-Whittier).

The bill was also unpopular with Latino Assembly members, who now hold two of the three leadership positions in the Assembly. They are expected to use their clout to block it unless a citywide vote is added.

“They talk about self-determination,” Ferraro said, “but if they [want that], I think everyone in the city should have a vote.”

Backers of the bill oppose a citywide vote.

Part of their strategy is to equate their position with the principles the country was founded upon. They argue self-determination means Valley residents should decide their own fate.

To hammer home the point, the McClintock measure, also known as Boland II, has been renamed The Right To Vote bill.

Opponents say the bill’s supporters are using self-determination selectively and want to deny the rest of the city the right to vote on something that will affect all Los Angeles residents.

In a further strategy to minimize opposition, the bill’s backers repeatedly say the bill has nothing to do with secession, but is merely a way to get leverage over City Hall.

Opponents say that argument is disingenuous, because passage of the bill would almost surely lead some part of the city down the secession road.

Close agrees that the bill’s passage would lead the Valley to consider whether to leave the city or stay. If the City Council became more responsive, there would be less reason to consider independence, he said.

“The City Council is helping us tremendously,” Close said. “They’re bumbling so many issues, they are the best advertisement as to why we need an accountable local government.”

Close said he expects the bill and issues raised by it to dominate two Valley City Council races, as well as the mayor’s race this spring.

Councilman Mike Feuer, who opposed the Boland bill, but favors charter reform to address issues of local control, is running for reelection in the 5th District against Valley VOTE co-chair Jeff Brain.

In the 11th District, candidate Cindy Miscikowski opposes changing the law unless there is a citywide vote. Her opponent, Georgia Mercer, supports the bill.

Mayor Richard Riordan’s position on the matter remains murky. After taking varying stances, the mayor took no position on the bill itself, but opposed any effort to break up Los Angeles.

He countered with a charter reform measure that qualified for the ballot, giving voters an opportunity to weigh in on whether the city’s structure needs revamping.

The Valley was instrumental in electing Riordan, so his handling of the issue during the campaign will be closely watched.

Local control is a big issue for potential Riordan opponent Sen. Tom Hayden (D-Los Angeles), who voted for the Boland bill last year, but favors reforming the city from within.