Impeachment Process Rejected by Charter Panel

Mindful of the impeachment proceedings that had begun just hours earlier in Washington, a Los Angeles charter reform commission on Monday overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to create a similar process here.

“If you look at what is going on in Washington right now . . . can you imagine what this kind of system would offer for political game-playing?” commissioner Chet Widom asked during a heated debate over the idea of creating a local system for impeaching elected officials. It would add up to “political chaos,” he said.

Commissioner Bennett Kayser presented the idea as an antidote to what he saw as moves to concentrate authority in the office of the mayor and other officials. Under his proposal, one-fourth of the city’s elected leaders could petition for an investigation of another leader if they believed the official was guilty of serious misconduct.

The City Council president would then have the authority to direct a council committee to investigate and decide whether there was evidence of a “serious abuse of power.” If so, four-fifths of the council could vote to remove the official.

No sooner had Kayser described the motion, however, than members of the elected commission were lining up to criticize it, many with direct reference to the House of Representatives’ debate over whether to investigate--and possibly bring articles of impeachment against--President Clinton.

“That is exactly what is going on 3,000 miles away,” Commissioner Rob Glushon argued. “This is bad politics. This is bad government.”

He added, “You don’t have elected officials stand and judge other elected officials.”

Kayser briefly tried to defend his proposal by noting that only officials accused of a serious abuse of power would be affected by the impeachment provisions.

“Who would define that?” one commissioner asked.

“Kenneth Starr,” Commissioner Widom retorted.

With that, debate ended.

The proposal was rejected by a 9 to 1 vote, with only Kayser voting in favor.