Proposal to Limit Agencies’ Autonomy Draws Late Criticism

A little-noticed measure on Tuesday’s city ballot--Charter Amendment HH, which some skeptics are calling “Proposition Hush-Hush”--is generating a growing eleventh-hour opposition campaign that now includes the mayor, City Council members, charter reformers and other top city officials.

Approved for the ballot swiftly and without debate by the City Council, the measure is coming under attack for its potential to grant lawmakers wide authority over such quasi-independent, or proprietary, city bodies as the Airports, Harbor, and Water and Power departments. Those agencies now operate their own budgets, outside the city’s general fund.

Criticism of the measure runs the gamut from a city official who calls it a sneaky attempt to grab power to others who say it has the unintended potential to force dramatic changes in city government. In addition, most opponents say such charter changes should be left to the two charter reform commissions currently rewriting the city’s constitution. (The appointed charter commission has scheduled a meeting to discuss the issue--even if it passes Tuesday.)

Mayor Richard Riordan on Thursday joined the chorus of those opposing the charter change, issuing a statement saying that the measure could strip the departments of their independence and that it did not receive an adequate financial analysis before going on the ballot.

“A ‘no’ on HH will allow our proprietary departments to continue operating in an atmosphere of integrity, focus and consistency,” the mayor said.

But some amendment supporters, including council President John Ferraro and the measure’s author, Chief Legislative Analyst Ron Deaton, say the controversy is being whipped up without reason and that the city has no designs on these departments’ dollars.

The charter change would allow the mayor and the council to consolidate or transfer any of the duties, powers or functions of any of these semiautonomous departments or either of the pension departments. (The measure essentially would give the mayor and council the same control over these agencies as they have over all other city departments.)

“The proprietary departments are very sensitive about interference by the mayor and the council but . . . there’s nothing there,” said one influential City Hall official who declined to be identified.

But an unusual coalition of the city’s top elected officials, including Controller Rick Tuttle, City Atty. James K. Hahn and about half a dozen council members, as well as department general managers and union officials, voiced opposition to the charter change. Councilman Joel Wachs is taking the rare step of attempting to introduce a motion at today’s council meeting to reverse the council’s position on it.

And Councilwoman Laura Chick, who signed the argument for the measure in the voter pamphlet, said Thursday that she is withdrawing her support and that the proprietary departments were created as semiautonomous “businesses” for a reason. She said she had “a narrow focus” when she endorsed the amendment.

The idea for the charter change stemmed from the problems the Los Angeles Police Department encountered in absorbing the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s police officers. LAPD Chief Bernard C. Parks, who now has a plan to bring all other police forces into the LAPD under a “one city, one department” policy, would need several charter changes--including HH--to make that happen.

After a Ferraro motion, Deaton created a small task force and wrote the proposed measure. But as it appears on the ballot, HH doesn’t mention the police or fire departments, except that Parks and Fire Chief William R. Bamattre, along with Chick, signed the supporting argument in the voters guide.

No opposing argument was submitted, but some say that is because no one really knew about it.

“It was covert manipulation,” said Xandra Kayden, president of the League of Women Voters of Los Angeles. It was a league researcher, in fact, who discovered the measure’s potential, Kayden said.

Julie Butcher of Service Employees International Union Local 347, which represents 10,000 city employees, said she would have written the rebuttal to the proposal had she known about it. “Frankly,” she said, “I feel kind of stupid, because we watch these things pretty closely.”

Although Councilwoman Jackie Goldberg said she does not see any “subterfuge” in the measure, she added: “If I had to do it again, I would not put HH on the ballot without much deeper debate on it. I will vote against it, and I’m urging others to do the same.”

Department general managers, such as S. David Freeman at the DWP, say they adamantly oppose the change precisely because of its potential.

“Inherently, they will have the authority to take things away from me that make money and give me things that cost money,” Freeman said. But he added that he has been assured there are no current designs on his department.

Also unclear is how the measure would affect the Harbor Department, where there is growing concern that the City Council is looking for ways to gain more control over the agency’s operations and budget.

Times staff writer Dan Weikel contributed to this story.