Compromise Now or All Will Fail in June

From the beginning, having two competing charter commissions rewriting Los Angeles’ constitution made little sense. Yet political disagreements produced this result and, faced with this reality, each commission has worked hard to produce a draft charter of its own. Not surprisingly, the two different processes have produced many areas of disagreement.

Last month, a conference committee of five members from each commission voted unanimously to send a proposal for a unified charter initiative to the two commissions. Like the U.S. Constitution, the proposal for a unified charter is a compromise and in many ways an improvement over the approaches taken by the two commissions. In areas such as the removal of general managers, the reorganization of departments, and the control of litigation, we believe that the conference committee has devised alternatives preferable to either commission’s position.

On one of the most controversial issues in the charter reform debate, the mayor’s authority to fire general managers, a relatively simple compromise was reached. The appointed commission favors keeping the current system where the mayor can remove a department head only with the approval of a majority of the City Council. The elected commission decided to allow the mayor to fire a general manager unilaterally. The compromise is to allow the mayor to fire general managers, but to permit a terminated department head to appeal to the council, which can override the mayor by a two-thirds vote.

On Tuesday and Wednesday, the two commissions will consider the proposal for a unified charter initiative. Los Angeles desperately needs charter reform, and two competing proposals are the least likely way to achieve it. The greatest hope for passage next June is if the two commissions can work out their differences and agree to this compromise proposal.