Lockyer Exit on Secession Bid Fuels Speculation

Until last week, it was almost a foregone conclusion that a Valley secession bill would pass the Legislature this year.

After all, the most powerful man in the Capitol--Sen. President Pro Tem Bill Lockyer (D-Hayward)--promised San Fernando Valley leaders he would make it happen, going so far as to lend his prestigious name to a bill addressing the matter.

Then he reneged, dropping the bill, the issue and some say the Valley itself, and leaving those involved stunned and trying to figure out what prompted the turnabout and what it bodes for other bills on secession awaiting action in the state Senate.

Lockyer insists his withdrawal from the fray was prompted by strong sentiment against the bill within the Democratic caucus and does not mean he’s abandoned the Valley.

“People who are attentive to this discussion know I’ve tried to be a constructive force,” Lockyer said. “I don’t think stepping aside could be interpreted in a negative way. It un-complicates things.”

But Lockyer’s departure has prompted skepticism that other forces, especially the Senate leader’s political aspirations, had entered the equation.

The fact that Lockyer is a master strategist, known to play several intersecting chess games at once, only fuels conjecture there is something afoot.

“We know Lockyer doesn’t do anything without thinking it through,” said one secession player, requesting anonymity. “There was some calculation. It was not a capricious act.”

Although Lockyer said he will not block secession legislation, as he did last year, some of its backers are uneasy.

“Since they can’t find a logical explanation, a lot of people are now concerned his promise of neutrality can’t be trusted,” said Richard Close, co-chairman of Valley VOTE, a group formed to push for a change in state law that would make it easier for the Valley to free itself from Los Angeles.

The speculation game centers on what Lockyer gains--or doesn’t lose--by dropping his own bill and not getting behind the Assembly measure because it lacks a provision for a state-funded study on the impacts of secession.

* Was he trying to keep peace in the caucus from which he derives power, as he says?

* Was he afraid of being embarrassed if his bill lost in the Assembly?

* Has he reconsidered the fallout from backing such a measure on his core constituencies--especially minority groups and labor unions--as he positions himself to run for state attorney general?

* Or was playing middleman between two contentious factions just not worth the aggravation?

“Obviously, the pain got greater than the pleasure,” said former Rep. Bobbi Fiedler, who is backing Valley secession legislation.

*

Lockyer rejected the notion his bill would have been shot down in the Assembly because it appropriated money for a study, but acknowledged being in the middle of the fray was no fun.

“It felt a little like a neighbor who tries to intervene in the family fight that’s going on next door,” Lockyer said in an interview. “The result is that both family members get mad at the neighbor . . . “

Lockyer announced his withdrawal from the secession bill wars at a recent meeting of state senators from the Los Angeles area, a session where two of the lawmakers expressed opposition to Lockyer’s involvement in the secession bill.

“It was clear to me so many members of my caucus have such strong feelings about this issue, I ought to step aside,” Lockyer said later. “I’m chosen by them. I try to use my office in a way that facilitates our common purposes and philosophy. This was a divisive matter.”

At the meeting last week, Sen. Diane Watson (D-Los Angeles) told Lockyer that as a Northern Californian he had no business meddling in Los Angeles affairs.

She said later in an interview that her community views Valley secession efforts as a white-flight issue.

If Lockyer does run for attorney general, Watson said, African Americans, who would be part of his natural constituency, would remember his role in making it easier to divide Los Angeles.

But the caucus unity explanation doesn’t pass muster with some who point out that opposition from Watson and Sen. Richard Polanco (D-Los Angeles), among others, was hardly news to Lockyer.

Watson and Polanco had fought vigorously against a secession bill sponsored last year by former Assemblywoman Paula Boland, so he was well aware of their concerns when he offered to help those in the Valley who want to change state law on secession.

Some suggested Lockyer was hiding behind the caucus to minimize backlash from Valley voters should he run for statewide office.

“He doesn’t want to lose Valley voters so he used Diane Watson for cover,” said Boland, whose bill was killed by Lockyer last year.

Another constituency Lockyer could have been trying to protect is organized labor, which is no fan of dividing Los Angeles because it would, among other things, dilute union clout in the city political arena.

Unions have been a key source of support for Lockyer, who has $3 million salted away should he decide to run for attorney general.

Most people interviewed--some of whom would only talk if their names were not revealed--believe issues surrounding Lockyer’s potential run for state attorney general were at the core of his decision.

Lockyer denies it.

“People looking up to the next rung on the political ladder very often neglect the one they’re on,” Lockyer said. “I decided not to do that.”

Besides, Lockyer likes his job as Senate leader and would stay there except for term limits.

The term-limit situation is yet another uncertainty, which Close and others suggested might be a factor in Lockyer’s calculations.

*

A federal judge has deemed the term-limit law unconstitutional, but the law remains in effect until a higher court makes a final ruling.

That could come too late for Lockyer, whose term expires in 1998.

But if the court ruling comes sooner and is in accord with the original ruling, Lockyer might not have to leave the Legislature, reason enough to make nice to those who elect him as their leader.

There is even talk of the Legislature writing a new term-limits law and placing it on the ballot in a special election.

Meanwhile, two bills written by Valley Assembly members await their fates.

One, by Assemblyman Tony Cardenas (D-Sylmar), is expected to run into significant opposition in the Senate.

The other, strikingly similar to Lockyer’s now-moribund measure, is co-sponsored by Tom McClintock (R-Northridge) and Bob Hertzberg (D-Sherman Oaks).

“If it gets killed, Lockyer’s the one who did it,” Boland said.