Don’t Stint on Charter Reform : L.A. City Council should vote funding for the elected panel too

The Los Angeles City Council, many of whose members long maintained that comprehensive reform of the city’s antiquated charter was not needed, has already agreed to fund one charter reform commission and now is being asked to fund a second. Adding to the irony, this second commission, which voters elected last spring, began as an effort to undercut the council.

Why two panels? It makes no sense. But Mayor Richard Riordan pushed for an elected panel while the council countered by creating its own appointed charter reform commission.

Curious though this state of affairs may be, the City Council would do well to quickly provide funding for the elected panel, whose members appear earnestly determined to improve city governance. Interest in streamlining the clunky, 72-year-old charter, once the hobbyhorse of policy wonks and City Hall junkies, became another arena for conflict this year between the council and Riordan. The mayor envisions a charter that cuts into the council’s omnipotence on matters minute and momentous and improves city services by untangling the maze of departments, commissions and agencies.

A smartly conceived and well-written city charter matters because the document determines in large measure how well Los Angeles runs. The charter determines when and how officials are elected, how departments function and, unfortunately, even matters so trivial as the acquisition and placement of artwork by the city. It should do far fewer things much better.

When the council first balked at reform, Riordan financed an initiative on the April ballot creating an elected 15-member commission--but providing no operating funds. In an attempt to best Riordan, the council last fall appointed its own 21-member charter reform commission, which will report back to the council. The council also approved $1.4 million in funding for that panel through its first 18 months.

Both panels are now at work, and feeling their way toward cooperating--but only the council-appointed group has funding. Riordan has promised the 15-member elected panel $300,000 in private funds, but the group says it needs $1.6 million for its two-year effort. The council has delayed action on this request until next month, possibly later. But it needs to move quickly; both panels aim to complete their work by late 1998. That leaves little enough time for study and deliberation, never mind for fund-raising.

The best outcome would be full cooperation between the panels as they rewrite the 700-page charter. This can hardly occur if one has decent funding and the other only crumbs. The most sensible solution is one that political protectionism probably won’t allow: The two commissions should become just one.