People Power, Not Mayor Power

In a few months, two charter reform commissions are due to put before the voters of Los Angeles proposals that will determine a central issue: Who should govern the second largest city in the most powerful nation in the world as we begin the 21st century--and how?

The question has a ring of urgency. Los Angeles has been rocked by major civil disturbances twice in the last 33 years; the threat of secession by major portions of the city continues to loom; large numbers of residents migrate to smaller, livable cities in outlying areas or to other states; entire communities subsist in neglect or despair or erect street barriers; and gated communities continue to proliferate. It does not require too careful a reading of public opinion polls to see the common theme. Angelenos are frustrated by an insufficient ability to influence decisions that affect their daily lives.

During the numerous public hearings held by the elected and appointed charter reform commissions over the last year, one theme recurs: People want a greater degree of direct control of their city and their lives. Every systematic poll or focus group analysis conducted on the issue yields the same result. By an overwhelming majority, always greater than two-thirds, residents of Los Angeles favor greater participation in decision making, generally through one or another form of neighborhood or community councils.

Polls also show that the public strongly supports maintaining, even enhancing, a strong system of checks and balances.

Yet to witness decisions of both charter commissions and to hear and read the opinions of some members of the downtown corporate elite, something seems to have been lost in the translation. They seem to be saying that the city needs to further concentrate power at the center of the downtown “10-minute diamond,” as the Civic Center Shared Facilities and Enhancement Plan is called (defined, with City Hall at its center point, by a 10-minute walk in each direction). The idea is to put more power in the hands of one person, the mayor, and remove checks and balances by ending oversight of mayoral and management decisions by the City Council.

They argue that this is in the interest of greater accountability. Exactly how one can increase accountability by removing the requirement that the mayor explain himself to the public or its representatives remains a mystery. The premise that the mayor of Los Angeles does not have enough power is a myth. And the problems our city is facing do not stem from a lack of authority in the mayor’s office. Giving more formal authority to the current or future mayors will not substitute for an individual’s lack of leadership skills. Mayor Tom Bradley didn’t complain that his hands were tied, nor did the mayors who preceded him.

The fact is, the mayor has considerably more power than those of other cities through the inordinate amount of control he has over the city budget and the appointment of city commissioners. Having to account to the City Council for some of his decisions, such as the hiring and firing of the heads of departments that provide vital services to the city, affords a mayor with political and leadership skills an opportunity to enlist the support of residents and their representatives for his vision of how those services can be better organized and delivered.

Is there a hidden agenda behind the efforts of the mayor and his downtown corporate friends? Is their charter reform effort designed to pluck away previous positive reforms to the city charter, under the guise of streamlining and modernizing?

While there are many different voices speaking from communities throughout Los Angeles calling for increased neighborhood empowerment, there are but a few voices coming from downtown clamoring for more power to the mayor. What’ll it be, Los Angeles: More power for him, or for us?