Elected Charter Panel Seeks Broader Powers for Mayor

With a series of swift and decisive votes, the elected Los Angeles charter reform commission has overwhelmingly recommended fundamental changes that would give the mayor far broader powers to manage City Hall.

The elected commission can submit its revised charter directly to voters, so its action late Monday night makes it likely that Los Angeles will have the chance to vote on a vastly reformed system of city government. A citywide referendum on one or more charter proposals is likely to come next June.

Advocates say the changes recommended by the panel would streamline city services and make them more accountable to residents. But opponents complain that they could centralize too much authority in the office of the mayor.

Underscoring the importance of the items being considered by the commission was the rare attendance of Mayor Richard Riordan, who kicked off the evening session by proclaiming it a landmark moment in Los Angeles history.

The framework being considered by the commission, Riordan said, “is truly genius for its simplicity and its logic.”

If voters agree, the enhanced authority for the mayor’s office would likely come near the end of Riordan’s tenure. As a result, Riordan himself would not benefit much from it, though he has touted charter reform as a legacy that he wants to leave Los Angeles and its future leaders.

Urged on by Riordan, the commission adopted a slew of measures intended to give the mayor greater authority. Most of the issues already had been considered by the panel, but the actions Monday night solidified the group’s positions and in many cases conformed with decisions by a second, appointed panel that is also at work on rewriting the city constitution.

Common Goals

The two charter commissions are trying to produce identical recommendations where possible, theorizing that a unified front will make the charter proposals more appealing to voters. In the event that they split, the elected commission has greater latitude because it can send its proposed charter directly to voters. The appointed panel is advisory to the City Council, which could submit the proposal as written, modify it, or kill it.

Initially, many observers saw the elected commission as Riordan’s way to end-run the council. The commissioners who were elected, however, largely were those not backed by the mayor, raising doubts about his ability to get his way on charter reform.

Many issues remain unresolved, and the commission appears not to favor Riordan’s views on some key points, such as a reorganization of the city attorney’s office and the structure of neighborhood councils. But at its meeting Monday, the elected panel emphatically backed Riordan’s hopes for a strengthened mayor.

In 16 areas the commission voted to enhance mayoral power. Among other things, it gave the mayor the power to fire department heads without council approval, to remove commissioners without council backing, to control all city litigation and to create and oversee a citywide Department of Finance.

The commission also favored stripping the City Council of its principal vehicle for reviewing the actions of mayor-appointed commissions. Under a mechanism known as Proposition 5, the council has the right to override any city commission’s vote.

That area will be revisited by the commission, and commissioners expect to try to come up with compromise language that would give the council some limited veto power.

Venturing into areas previously not put to a vote, the commission also concluded that the mayor needs greater latitude to hire, fire and manage. On the question of recruiting department heads, the commission decided that the mayor should be allowed to choose anyone rather than being limited to picking from a list produced by the city’s Personnel Department. The selection would still be subject to council confirmation.

“The mayor is the most visible city official,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, chairman of the elected commission. “We need to give the mayor authority and hold him accountable.”

Riordan signaled his intense interest in the issue by bringing most of his top staff and his closest personal advisor, Bill Wardlaw, to the session.

Wardlaw has been rarely spotted at meetings of the charter reform group, and his presence stirred chatter among those attending. One Riordan critic sneered: “The real mayor’s here tonight.”

Others addressed the commission, passionately arguing the opposing sides of issues for more than 90 minutes.

Even Marvin Braude, who retired last year after more than 30 years on the City Council, told charter commissioners that he generally agreed with bolstering the influence of the city’s mayor.

“He ought to have power,” Braude said. “I need him and you need him and the people need him to have power to protect our rights.”

Comparing Los Angeles to the weak democracies of Europe after World War I, Braude warned that the inability to act decisively caused those governments to fail.

“Los Angeles,” he said, “is subject to that kind of a general risk.”

A Voice of Dissent

Although Braude’s support for a stronger mayor was echoed by other speakers, Service Employees International Union leader Julie Butcher, an influential figure in the charter reform movement, argued strongly in the opposite direction.

She noted that the mayor already has the power to draft a budget and to appoint members to every one of the city’s dozens of commissions. She called the mayor “the most powerful political figure in one of the most powerful cities in the world.”

Giving the mayor more power, Butcher argued, would create weak general managers who would act out of political loyalty to the mayor rather than out of concern for the residents. Riordan, sitting a few feet away, shook his head and whispered to an aide as Butcher made that case.

“This charter and this constitution cannot be about giving the mayor more power,” Butcher concluded.

Although Butcher heads one of the city’s most important labor unions, workers are not united on the question of centralizing government power.

In general, the unions representing buildings and trades have supported moves to streamline city government on the theory that a more efficient government would encourage development and create more construction work. Public employees have argued against consolidation of power, fearing that it could make city workers more vulnerable to political or other retaliation.

Butcher’s comments were countered by a representative of the local carpenters union.

“I come from an industry where you have to have a foreman to get a job done,” said Bill Luddy.

To hear Mayor Richard Riordan’s remarks from the charter reform commission meeting, go to The Times’ World Wide Web site at: https://www.latimes.com/charter

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

City Charter Proposals

The actions by the city’s elected charter commission, if approved by voters, would substantially strengthen the mayor’s authority and limit the City Council’s management powers. An appointed charter commission is also working on retooling the duties of the council and mayor, but its recommendations--unlike those of the elected panel--are subject to City Council review and approval. A few examples from the elected commission’s recommendations:

Appointments

CURRENT CHARTER: Mayor may appoint and remove general managers, but only with City Council approval.

PROPOSED REFORM: Mayor would be able to remove general managers without council review.

*

Reorganizations

CURRENT CHARTER: Only the council can reorganize city departments and redefine their duties.

PROPOSED REFORM: Mayor would be able to reorganize most departments on his own.

*

City finance

CURRENT CHARTER: City finance functions are spread throughout various departments.

PROPOSED REFORM: New Department of Finance would consolidate functions and report to the mayor.

*

Checks and balances

CURRENT CHARTER: Proposition 5 allows the council to overturn any vote of a city commission.

PROPOSED REFORM: Proposition 5 as presently written would be repealed. Compromise still may be offered.

*

Neighborhood councils

CURRENT CHARTER: No formal neighborhood councils exist.

PROPOSED REFORM: New neighborhood councils would submit budgets to mayor, who would include them in the city budget.

*

Litigation

CURRENT CHARTER: City Council controls city litigation.

PROPOSED REFORM: Mayor would control litigation, though the commission still is working to define that.

Source: Elected Charter Commission