The Wages of Confusion May Be a Small Turnout

When only 24% of registered L.A. voters turned out for this month’s municipal elections, analysts trotted out all the obvious explanations: Mayor Richard J. Riordan’s popularity and early commanding lead; the absence of any hot-button initiatives on the ballot, and the lack of serious challengers in most City Council races. Perhaps there was another, more fundamental explanation for the dismal turnout: The average voter has lost his or her ability to understand what the city’s basic institutions are doing and thus is hard-pressed to evaluate their leaders. In such a state of confusion, voters care less and less--and stay home more and more.

Consider the Los Angeles Police Department, the Metropolitan Transit Authority and the Los Angeles Unified School District. These institutions are charged with the most fundamental of duties: keeping our streets and neighborhoods safe, constructing and administering a workable transit system, and educating our children. All straightforward--if difficult--tasks. Yet, why is it so difficult to fathom their

conduct in pursuing their missions?

To be sure, there is no shortage of “expert” opinion and commentary on these institutions. The problem is that their leaders seem more interested in waging the good in-fight than he talking to the voters about what they are up to. One result is a curious schism between appearances and outcomes.

The impending exit of Police Chief Willie L. Williams is Exhibit A. There may be a few City Hall insiders and police commissioners who understand why Williams deserves to be shown the door. However, as Williams departs with a $375,000 settlement and amid pleas that he be “treated with dignity” from the same officials who forced him out, the average resident can hardly be expected to have a clear sense of why he’s leaving.

Right up through the end of his tenure, Williams’ approval ratings were the highest of any city official. At his press conference following Ennis Cosby’s murder, he was charismatic, confident, inspiring and in command of the facts. The public gave Williams good marks for improving his department’s relationship to the community. During his tenure, crime dramatically dropped. In short, judging from external appearances, he was a real leader.

Of course, Williams was not perfect. He displayed a troubling tendency to threaten legal action in the face of criticism. He could have been more solicitous of his rank and file. He could have improved his management skills. Few would call these fatal flaws, however. Yet, Williams is out. And the public is justifiably confused.

L.A. voters were no doubt hopeful when they passed Proposition A in 1990, which raised their taxes to help pay for a new mass-transit system. Since then, confusion has reigned. Ordinary citizens ask such questions as: Why are we building a transit system that doesn’t include a stop at the airport? Why is the Red Line bypassing Wilshire Boulevard, the city’s densest population corridor? Why doesn’t the MTA build a light-rail line on the existing Santa Fe right-of-way it owns in the Exposition Corridor?

Maybe there are good answers to these questions. But in the absence of satisfactory explanations, the suspicion persists that an airport stop was left out because the taxi and airport-shuttle lobbies were too strong, and that Wilshire Boulevard and Exposition Corridor were bypassed because well-connected Westsiders wanted them bypassed.

In any case, the public’s confidence in the MTA and its leaders is hardly growing. A new chief executive officer to run the transit agency may help matters, but already there are the old, familiar charges of conflict of interest surrounding the reported choice of the MTA board.

Perhaps no body will have as great an effect on L.A.’s future as the LAUSD. Certainly, the difficulties of educating a sprawling, economically disadvantaged school-aged population speaking more than 100 languages warrants patience and understanding. But it is a rare parent indeed who can claim insight into the district’s strategy for managing its schools. One group--LEARN--pushes for decentralization and more school autonomy. Another pushes for universal standards and greater standardization of curricula and teaching approaches. A third maintains that the magic cure for the LAUSD’s problems is to split it up into many districts.

No wonder one candidate for school superintendent thought better of his ambition and bowed out, saying: “I’m not sure these jobs [running large urban school systems] are doable.”

Many might say the same thing when it comes to running large urban police departments or large urban transit systems. But when the new leaders of the LAPD, MTA and LAUSD are chosen, maybe they should be required to explain to their customers and the voters what they are doing and why. Maybe they should tell us how they want to be evaluated--in a clear and understandable way. Otherwise, the one in four voters who still participate in city elections may soon also decide that it just doesn’t matter.