A Struggle to Consensus

There was tension in the basement room at the Department of Water and Power. Over early morning coffee and pastries one day recently, a group drawn from the elected and appointed commissions debating reform of the Los Angeles City Charter came face to face with their very real differences over how much power the mayor should have.

Earlier that week, the elected commission had voted to give future mayors far broader powers than Richard Riordan has now. The commission appointed by the City Council has also tentatively voted to expand the mayor’s power, but with limitations. The two panels agreed on some important points--for example, that the mayor should be the chief executive primarily responsible for managing the city and the mayor should be able to fire department managers without council approval.

But the differences between the two groups, on the scope of the mayor’s authority and other issues, could sink the fragile reform effort. Separate, conflicting proposals would fragment public support and confuse voters, who will ultimately make the decision whether to accept or reject the proposed charter next June. Too much detail and/or a lack of clarity will frustrate citizens who want public officials to be more accountable and city services delivered more efficiently.

The so-called conference committee that met over coffee at the DWP was created months ago at the urging of Erwin Chemerinsky and George Kieffer, chairs of the elected and appointed commissions respectively. Its purpose is to smooth some of the bumps in the path of this important process. The small group meets regularly to chew over the tentative decisions taken by each commission independently, to seek reconciliation on differences and strengthen areas of agreement, all subject to endorsement by each full panel.

Take the issue of the mayor’s power under a new charter. It took more than an hour of sometimes testy debate for the conference committee to reach tentative consensus on general principles regarding the scope of the mayor’s power, only to decide to reconsider the issue at the next meeting, this Friday.

When and if the commissions find common ground on this knotty issue, it will fall to Steven Presberg and Mary Strobel to take the first crack at crafting that agreement into words that could be included in a new charter . . . when and if. Strobel, former deputy city attorney for Santa Monica, works for the appointed commission, and Presberg, an affable former New Yorker who has practiced law in both the public and private sectors, works for the elected commission. Each lawyer heads a team that, over the past months, has drafted more than two dozen pages for a new city charter. Kieffer and Chemerinsky, both lawyers, take an active role in drafting as well, along with commissioners from both panels, many of whom are lawyers.

The evolution of their relationship mirrors what must continue to happen between the two commissions if a draft charter is to be successful. Presberg and Strobel began drafting sections of a new charter independently, but their separate drafting styles at first obscured the many substantive points of consensus that the two panels had achieved.

The two lawyers and indeed the two commissions now work more collaboratively. Both panels are working toward a single draft. One clear draft charter, representing the consensus of both commissions, is the only way charter reform will get the voter support it needs, particularly in the face of ominous talk by some business, homeowner and labor groups and even some members of the City Council of ways to defeat the effort. The sections already drafted highlight areas of disagreement between the two panels with boldface type, and there is still a lot of it. Stark differences loom on several issues, including the mayor’s authority and the role of proposed neighborhood councils. But by starting from the premise that consensus can and must work, the challenge to the commissioners is clear. Much depends on the ability of these men and women to agree--perhaps even the efficiency of Los Angeles government in the 21st century.