SPECIAL REPORT * Reform efforts were once easy to ignore, but now they’re hitting home as . . .Debate Over City Charter Heats Up Fast

A curious thing has happened to charter reform: Over the course of a few weeks, it has gone from being an inoffensive exercise to a suddenly charged and threatening movement.

Business leaders have warned that they will oppose any charter that they believe would stymie development and fracture city politics. Some homeowner groups have intimated that they will wage a campaign of opposition if they don’t get the right to block developments in their communities. Some San Fernando Valley business interests have joined with secession advocates in demanding local control through community boards.

Paula Boland, a member of the elected commission, publicly vowed to campaign against her own colleagues if they approve a bill of rights--any bill of rights--in their draft. And now, City Councilwoman Jackie Goldberg, troubled by moves to strengthen the mayor’s authority, has floated the idea of pushing the charter commissions to include provisions so radical that they would alienate voters and doom the entire effort--a strategy known as the “poison pill.”

That suggestion infuriates some charter reform advocates, who say it is far too soon for Goldberg and others to threaten to scuttle one of the most ambitious Los Angeles reform efforts in decades--much less to threaten it with a subterfuge such as loading the ballot rather than straightforwardly campaigning against a proposed charter.

Goldberg, a savvy political organizer, agreed that it is premature to launch any drive against the charter reform efforts but added that she is concerned by their current drift. And if the charter ends up giving too much power to the mayor, Goldberg stressed, she will not hesitate to fight it.

“Based on what they’ve come up with, you do have to think about killing it,” she said.

The ratcheting up of tension surrounding charter reform has reached both commissions--one appointed largely by members of the City Council, the other elected after Mayor Richard Riordan pushed for it.

The most visible example of that increased discord was a powerful demonstration of labor concern at last week’s elected panel meeting. The result is that some charter commissioners worry that their chances for compromise are dwindling and the prospects of a bitter campaign next year are growing.

“The rhetoric of charter reform has turned ugly in recent weeks,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, chairman of the elected commission. “We’re now hearing from people who feel so strongly about one issue or another that their response is to say: ‘We’re going to kill charter reform if we don’t get what we want.’ ”

Interestingly, the tension around charter reform has grown even as the two charter commissions have managed to find a number of areas of common concern. On the broad questions of mayoral power, both commissions are inclined to add to the authority of the chief executive by expanding the office’s ability to fire city commissioners and general managers without City Council approval.

*

The two commissions have tried wherever possible to hammer out positions that both can accept. The idea behind that drive for consensus is that leaders of both commissions believe their chances of succeeding at the ballot will be improved if voters face one proposed charter rather than two.

But although the commissions have generally agreed that the city’s chief executive needs to have more authority in order to run Los Angeles efficiently, others have taken sharp issue with that point and are rumbling about whether charter reform, still in its infancy, has gone too far.

“The best part of the current charter is that it contains a serious set of checks and balances,” Goldberg said. “In my opinion, they [the charter commissions] are removing important checks.”

Specifically, the councilwoman warned that the mayor already has the power to draft a budget and to use a line-item veto to remove council amendments that he does not support. That gives the mayor significantly more power over that document, the city’s annual spending and priority plan, than the president of the United States has over the federal budget. Given that, Goldberg and some others believe that it’s dangerous to give the mayor still more power.

Frustrated by what she believes is a mistaken drift toward over-empowering the mayor, Goldberg said she has entertained the idea of working to fight a proposed charter, either directly or through the poison pill approach.

“I raised that as a possibility,” she said, after labor sources reported that she had mentioned the idea during a meeting last week of city unions and others. “If you want to protect the city against a bad idea, you’d be crazy not to think about it.”

Charter reform opponents have long contemplated the poison pill as a way of trying to doom the effort. Some even hoped that the elected commission would embrace a controversial bill of rights that included a guarantee of abortion rights on the theory that the proposal would become a lightning rod for charter opposition and would sink the ballot measure.

Goldberg stressed that she is not yet ready to embark on that course. Instead, she hopes to persuade the charter commissions to reconsider some of their proposals for boosting mayoral authority. In particular, the councilwoman is bothered by the idea that the mayor would be able to fire city general managers without any council review.

“You have, in essence, placed all power over the administration of the city in one person’s hands,” she said. “The fastest system in the world is a dictatorship . . . but to get a system where the trains run on time, you pay a price.”

Goldberg emphasizes that her concerns about consolidating mayoral power are not related to her critique of Riordan--most observers agree that even if charter reform is approved, the new rules will take effect too late to have much impact on him. She is joined in her concerns by a powerful and active group of city workers and their union representatives.

Julie Butcher, who heads the local chapter of the Service Employees International Union, has long opposed strengthening the office of mayor. And last week, after the elected charter commission enacted its moves over her opposition, she turned out dozens of city workers to complain to the panel.

*

“Putting more power in the mayor seems contrary to the goal of creating a more democratic city,” she said, as speaker after speaker made roughly the same point. “This has galvanized labor.”

Although Chemerinsky and others worry about the pitched divisiveness that has arisen around charter reform, they add that in one sense it reflects a positive development. While the reform efforts once were easy to laugh off, they have acquired a seriousness that now makes them hard to ignore.

“People are finally focusing and taking the charter reform process seriously,” said Geoffrey Garfield, administrative director of the elected commission. “And we’re hearing about it.”

Like it or not, Los Angeles voters will have the chance to overhaul the city government next year. And for some, that could portend the possibility of unsettling change.

“What you’re seeing is that the words ‘charter reform,’ which are deadly dull, are suddenly coming to life for people who might be affected,” said George Kieffer, who chairs the appointed commission. “Certain people are recognizing more clearly that when you change the rules, you are talking about very significant changes in government, and that will affect a lot of people.”

Kieffer acknowledged that the rising temperature of the debate has been striking. But he argued that tough decisions and concerned interests were inevitable in the charter reform effort--and better now than later, he said.

“It’s appropriate that we have a dialogue about this, no matter how loud it gets at times,” he said. “If we have the discussion now, it won’t take us by surprise during the campaign.”