Charter Reform and Controller

Re “Redesigning Our City Government to Work,” by Erwin Chemerinsky and George Kieffer, Commentary, Nov. 3:

The problem is not the lack of good ideas, nor, for the most part, is the City Charter an insurmountable obstacle. Instead we have a system bogged down by minutia, and except on rare occasions, good ideas fail to get implemented. Charter reform can help by setting in motion countervailing forces, through community boards and other devices, that could help force the public airing of tough issues.

Unfortunately the commentary by the two charter reform committee chairs picked a weak example of the problem presented by the current charter. It is true that both the controller and the treasurer are charged with maintaining a modern system of accounting (these words written in 1925), but only the controller is charged with the responsibility “to prescribe” what systems should be used. In the mid-1980s a new, citywide, computer-based financial management system was installed at the request of the controller, which centralized all but a handful of the accounting functions of the city. There remain a few accounting functions in the city treasurer’s office that the controller’s office has identified as unnecessary. But to believe this is a major inefficiency or cost shows a complete lack of understanding of what each office does. The remaining inefficiencies can be corrected under the present system.

RICK TUTTLE

L.A. City Controller

* * In “Champions of Minutia” (editorial, Nov. 4) you wrote, “A reasonably reformed charter would more equitably delegate power. A reasonable City Council would welcome that kind of change.” The first thought that came to mind was a teenage expression: Duh!

Frankly, I was surprised when I read the Nov. 3 story regarding the Los Angeles City Council meetings (“City Council: L.A.’s Micro-Managers”). I’ve been wondering when The Times was going to take its head out of the sand.

JEAN FLEMING

Studio City