Mayor Says He Favors Elected Panel’s Charter Reform Proposals

Mayor Richard Riordan on Monday delivered his most forceful critique yet of the efforts to reform the Los Angeles City Charter, saying that he opposes the package developed by an appointed panel but favors the document drafted by its elected counterpart.

Speaking to reporters from community newspapers across the city, Riordan argued that although even the elected commission’s recommendations do not go far enough in overhauling city government, its proposals would streamline city government and improve management of services. The recommendations of the appointed commission, by contrast, would do little to change the status quo, according to Riordan.

Erwin Chemerinsky, who heads the elected commission, welcomed Riordan’s comments, saying that it was heartening to hear praise after so many months of work and occasional criticism from various quarters. George Kieffer, the chairman of the appointed body, was decidedly cooler, noting that while Riordan was entitled to his views, “it would be more helpful if we had more constructive engagement from the mayor and other city leaders from the beginning of this.”

The two commissions are reviewing the charter simultaneously, but they have different roots and powers. The appointed panel’s members were picked by City Council members and other city officials, and their work will be forwarded to voters only if the City Council approves the recommendations. The elected commission, whose 15 members were chosen by city voters, can submit its proposed charter directly to the electorate.

“They both have done excellent work, and I respect them both,” the mayor said. But the appointed panel’s need to win council approval for its work, according to Riordan, has made it too cautious. “As they go along, they have an eye toward the City Council,” Riordan said. “And they try to come up with something that the City Council will accept.”

Riordan’s remarks, made in advance of the elected commission’s public meeting this weekend, signaled the mayor’s desire to see that panel hold its ground over the coming weeks despite calls for compromise between the two panels. In that light, Riordan’s comments contribute to the growing likelihood that the two commissions will present competing ballot measures for voters to consider next year.

Since the city’s multimillionaire mayor not only wields political power but also has the ability to bankroll a campaign, his comments suggest that the elected panel will start with a leg up over its appointed rival.

At the same time, however, the prospect of competing charter reform measures--one of which includes two optional charter amendments in addition to its main set of recommendations--raises the specter of a confused electorate. Some charter reform advocates have worried that voters, faced with such an array of options, may simply vote down the entire package.

Kieffer said that despite Riordan’s criticism of his commission’s recommendations, he remains committed to trying to hammer out a compromise charter proposal that would win the support of both panels. Kieffer said after that reading some of Riordan’s analysis, he called Chemerinsky to reiterate his determination to seek common ground.

“I left him the message that no matter what pressures are on each of us . . . I personally and my commission remain committed to the conference committee process,” he said.

Chemerinsky agreed, saying he believes the chances for winning voter approval of a charter are strongest if the commissions can unite behind a single document. He added, however, that both commissions feel strongly about their work, and it may turn out that forging a consensus proves impossible.

“I remain committed to trying to do that,” Chemerinsky said. “But while one charter is ideal, it’s also important that we not compromise [on] things that are important to us.”

In the past, Riordan often has avoided weighing in publicly on specific proposals for charter reform, a tactic he adopted to deny critics the opportunity of rallying against the measures by using him as a target.

On Monday, however, Riordan and several of his top aides went through the charter proposals , and the mayor expressed his views on nearly a dozen of the most controversial provisions. They also produced a list of charter reform proposals and comments on each; in almost every instance, the comments demonstrate the mayor’s preference for the proposals endorsed by the elected commission.

Riordan was particularly pointed when it came to two areas: the mayor’s power to fire city department heads and the mayor’s authority to oversee management of city finances. In both cases, Riordan argued that the appointed commission has essentially sought to preserve an existing, flawed system, while the elected one has taken strides to fix the lack of meaningful oversight.

On the mayor’s power to fire department heads, for example, the appointed commission at first suggested giving the city chief executive that authority, then reversed field and allowed the council to keep its override.

“This sounds very democratic and interesting, but it totally undermines the power of the mayor,” Riordan said Monday, citing his long efforts to push aside Recreation and Parks Director Jackie Tatum, who resisted the mayor’s pressure and ultimately left her job only when offered a one-year consulting contract.

“If you don’t have the power to fire the head of a department,” Riordan asked, “how do you get their attention?”

Under the charter tentatively drafted by the elected commission, the mayor would be able to fire department heads at will. Commission backers of the idea say that will make department heads more accountable and responsive, while critics warn that it may make general managers afraid to take any action that might offend the mayor.

The elected commission has received conflicting advice on whether to give the mayor that power, but a majority of the panel has stood fast in favor of it. By contrast, the appointed commission backed away, in part because of opposition voiced by residents who turned out for his open houses. That proposal was one of few on which large numbers of people voiced concern and opposition.

“Once we stepped out of downtown, we found that there was little support,” Kieffer said.

Riordan criticized that decision and another by the appointed commission, which has voted to keep the city administrative office’s role in advising both the mayor and council on the city budget. That recommendation, according to Riordan, diffuses too much authority for drafting a budget. He argued that a better system would be to consolidate budget writing responsibilities in officials who report to the mayor.

Under that proposal, which closely parallels the recommendations of the elected commission, the council would retain the right to approve or reject the budget, preserving some balance of power within the city government.

Riordan also weighed in on a variety of other topics, saying, for instance, that he favors expansion of the City Council. It was the first time he has publicly commented on that issue. If the election were held today, Riordan said he would vote for the main charter proposed by the elected commission as well as one option that it is proposing--that the council be expanded from 15 to 25 members.

In some areas, neither commission has given the mayor what he asked for. Riordan proposed splitting the city attorney’s office in half, but both commissions turned him down.

And one of the debate’s most contentious matters, proposals to create neighborhood councils, has produced a tentative agreement between the two commissions.

Both rejected creating elected councils with power over local land use, a move that disappointed some San Fernando Valley homeowner groups and city employee unions, among others, but one that Riordan said was a smart decision.