Panels Deliver Compromise Charter Plan to City Council

In a ceremony designed to play up the unity between the city’s two charter reform commissions while playing down their continuing frictions, the two panels’ leaders Wednesday presented the Los Angeles City Council with a draft proposal to overhaul city government by rewriting its constitution.

The presentation by appointed commission Chairman George Kieffer and elected commission Chairman Erwin Chemerinsky emphasized how far the two panels have come in presenting a single charter for the council’s consideration.

“This new, unified charter reflects our best thinking,” Kieffer said, stressing that the document was a compromise and thus demanded sacrifices on all sides. “Everyone had to be prepared to give something up. And in the end, everyone has.”

Chemerinsky joined Kieffer in announcing his support for the compromise draft, but acknowledged that a number of potentially difficult obstacles remain between now and completion of a unified document.

Specifically, Chemerinsky cited four: the effective date of the new charter, the question of how the Los Angeles Police Department should handle discipline of its officers, a set of issues relating to succession of elected officials who die or become incapacitated, and a disagreement about how much detail the charter should provide about the organization of a new system of neighborhood councils.

Those are the major differences, but other commissioners say they are far from the only ones. According to several elected commissioners, panel members over the weekend identified 44 substantive areas where they think the draft charter does not accurately reflect the decisions made by the elected group. In addition, another list of concerns identifies dozens more questions about the drafting and lists provisions whose inclusion in the charter has mystified some elected commissioners.

Among other things, elected commissioners have raised questions about the language that would redesign the controller’s office, the city attorney’s office and the new Office of Research and Administrative Services. Some of those questions have been answered to the satisfaction of some commissioners, but many concerns remain.

“I think that we want to be on the track, but we want to be sure that the promise of change is assured by clear language,” said Commissioner Rob Glushon, one of those who has questioned the current draft. “We’re not there yet. We have a long way to go.”

Other elected commissioners have gone so far as to object to the appointed commission referring to the document it filed Wednesday as the “unified charter.” Instead, they emphasize that it is merely a first draft, and one that has never received the final approval of the elected panel.

“I don’t think anyone wants to hear it, but the document referred to as the unified charter was not drafted jointly by the two commissions,” Glushon said. “To be honest, we have to let the council know that this is not a joint document that we endorse.”

Despite such complaints, Chemerinsky said he remains optimistic that those issues and a few others can be resolved in the coming weeks. Nevertheless, he acknowledged that emotions are running high.

“Everyone’s tired,” he said. “It’s been such a long and draining process.”

Probably the most difficult issue at the moment is that of the charter’s effective date. The draft presented to the council Wednesday calls for the new charter, if approved by voters, to take effect on July 1, 2001. Supporters say the long delay is needed to give the government time to prepare itself for revamping the way it does business.

“Everyone agrees that it will take time to put this into effect,” Kieffer said, adding that in about 75 different areas, ordinances will be required to redesign city services and agencies. Creating a new system of area planning commissions alone will require map drawing, public hearings and appointments, he and others said.

Critics, however, say it is unfair to make voters wait two years before seeing any of the promised reforms. What’s more, some believe that the date was deliberately chosen to slight Mayor Richard Riordan, whose final day in office is June 30, 2001.

Some critics of the 2001 date have suggested phasing in the charter, with simpler functions being adopted immediately and others being delayed--with the entire document being in place before 2001. Kieffer said Wednesday that he believes that some phase-in may be possible, but he warned against any complicated, confusing plan.

The council did not discuss the charter Wednesday, but Council President John Ferraro set a special meeting for next Thursday, at which time the council is expected to formally take up the issue.

Without wading into the nuances of the debate, a number of civic leaders Wednesday endorsed the joint charter and urged the council to approve it as well. Representatives of the Central City Assn., the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, the Los Angeles Urban League and the Civic Coalition for Charter Reform praised the joint proposal, which they said would help make the city’s government more efficient and responsive.

The draft charter also is supported by City Administrative Officer Keith Comrie, who spent months fiercely criticizing the elected commission’s approach but said he was encouraged by many of the compromises reached in recent weeks.

“These are very sound decisions,” he said. “This will result in better representation, and it keeps the appropriate checks and balances in government.”