Charter Panel Rejects Plan to Compromise

In a stunning moment of political drama, the Los Angeles elected charter reform commission rejected a proposal to compromise with its appointed counterpart and voted Tuesday to pursue its own version of revamping the City Charter.

The final vote was 9 to 6, and it came after several commissioners openly wrestled with the question and seemed unsure of what to do until the issue came to a head.

Commissioner Rob Glushon seemed to argue for compromise, then voted against it. Commissioner Dennis Zine asked for more time, then voted for the compromise. Commissioner Richard Macias, considered a key vote, argued both sides of the question, then waited until the compromise had been rejected before casting a meaningless vote with the majority.

The commission’s move, made over the objections of its chairman, vastly increases the possibility that city voters in June will consider two different versions of charter reform--the more moderate approach favored by the appointed commission and City Council, and the more far-reaching attempt by the elected panel.

Some observers see that as a recipe for confusion and the defeat of charter reform, but others believe competing measures could drum up voter interest and make it easier for reform to win approval.

Elected commissioners did make one last stab at continuing to negotiate with the appointed commission, instructing a conference committee of the two commissions to consider a compromise package with many strings attached. A number of those conditions already have been rejected by the appointed commission, so that effort appears doomed.

A Win for the Mayor

For Mayor Richard Riordan, the vote was a major political victory and came after a hard lobbying campaign. After spending much of his vacation calling commissioners from Idaho, Riordan appeared before the panel Tuesday night, and urged it one last time to reject the compromise, largely because it would not allow the city’s mayor to fire department heads without City Council involvement.

Warning that giving in to compromise would fuel secession by the San Fernando Valley and let down voters who elected the commission, Riordan pleaded with the panel to stand behind its work.

“I think the work you’ve done has been incredibly expert and superb,” said Riordan, who departed from his prepared text and spoke with quiet conviction. “I urge you to stand before the voters and have confidence. I will stand with you every inch of the way.”

On the other side, Council President John Ferraro argued that the compromise package gave the mayor enough new power, while preserving a meaningful role for the City Council.

“If this compromise fails to win your approval--and that of the appointed commission--I believe the result might well be the failure of the last chance for charter reform for many years to come,” Ferraro said.

After the vote, Riordan declined to celebrate but said he believed that the commission had done the right thing. “I think the vote is a step in the direction that I think is right,” said Riordan, before heading to the hospital where his daughter was in labor.

Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas, on the other hand, warned of a potentially difficult and divisive campaign ahead.

“Conflict and haggling appear to be on the horizon,” he said as he left the meeting.

Similarly, George Kieffer, chairman of the city’s appointed commission and an advocate of the compromise charter, said the elected panel’s vote represented a “severe setback.” Nevertheless, Kieffer added that he would continue to try to hammer out a compromise package.

If adopted by voters, the elected commission’s charter would have profound implications for Los Angeles. The effect of some changes would be confined to City Hall, while a few would reverberate through the city. The mayor would gain power to oversee lawsuits and would be able to fire city department heads without council involvement. Other city functions, such as the role of the controller, would be streamlined and clarified. The existing, 700-page charter would be replaced with a trimmer, simpler governing document.

More broadly, approval of the elected commission’s version of a new charter would launch Los Angeles on an ambitious and hard-to-predict experiment in community representation. The main portion of the elected commission’s charter would create a citywide network of self-selected neighborhood councils. Those councils, never before tried on a formal basis in Los Angeles, would advise the City Council and mayor on an array of issues.

In addition, the elected commission’s charter would allow voters to go one step further. Voters could opt to create elected neighborhood councils--as opposed to panels selected by local caucus votes--and those councils would be vested with real decision-making power, not just advisory authority.

Another move intended to improve representation in a city where residents often say they feel disconnected from City Hall is the elected commission’s proposals regarding the size of the City Council. Proposals to expand the council drew sharp division, however, with some African American commissioners vehemently opposing an expansion that they believe--despite the views of demographers and others--will dilute their voting strength on the council.

Under the elected commission’s package, the main charter proposal offered to voters would leave the council size unchanged at 15. But a separate checkoff would allow voters to endorse expansion from 15 to 25 members.

As the pivotal vote neared Tuesday night, both sides waged a determined lobbying campaign. City workers released a poll favoring the compromise, and endorsements rolled in. Ferraro announced his support for the unified package, as did City Atty. James Hahn and City Controller Rick Tuttle.

“It is now time to find those areas of broadest agreement,” Tuttle said in a letter to commissioners. “I believe your two chairpersons have largely accomplished this task, and I am prepared to support their recommendations.”

The lobbying helped solidify a number of votes, and much of the attention in the final days centered on Macias, who was appointed to the panel two months ago by Riordan.

Macias, a lawyer and partner with the firm Rivkin, Radler & Kremer, specializes in business and government litigation but is relatively unknown at City Hall. Since coming to the commission, he has largely been a marginal player in the panel’s public debates, known more for his self-deprecating questions than for casting any important votes.

In December, however, he stunned Riordan by indicating that he was inclined to vote for the compromise package rather than the elected commission’s charter. Faced with mounting pressure to reconsider, Macias managed to irritate both camps by saying that he would cast the deciding vote in favor of the compromise but that if the package was going to fall short anyway, he preferred to vote with Riordan rather than further antagonize him.

Pushing for Votes

Still, the Riordan team struggled in the final scramble for votes, partly because the administration was buffeted by competing desires: to defeat the compromise proposal, if possible, but to avoid isolating the mayor if the vote went the other way.

The result was a strange set of mixed signals from the Riordan camp. Even as some charter commissioners complained of the heavy lobbying they were receiving from the mayor and his allies, principally lawyer Bill Wardlaw, the administration also withdrew from a public fight over the same issues.

Angered by an editorial in Sunday’s Times that accused Riordan of being arrogant and stubborn for resisting the compromise in favor of his view of efficient city government and the work of the elected commission, administration officials drafted a letter to the editor in response and pushed to have it appear in Tuesday’s paper so that it would be made public before the evening vote.

“Real charter reform is about the future of Los Angeles,” Riordan’s letter concluded. “Angelenos expect and deserve real change. It’s not arrogant to support the elected charter reform commission. The real arrogance is in ignoring the will of the people.”

But Riordan aides then abruptly withdrew that letter after an internal debate over the effect that it might have.

Meanwhile, working behind the scenes, Riordan aides tried to make two cases: that the elected commission’s charter was substantively better than the compromise package and that the political campaign for charter reform would not be significantly hampered by giving voters a choice between the two documents.

Making the second point, administration officials argued that competing measures might stimulate voter interest and that the elected commission would enter that campaign with significant advantages over the appointed panel, both in terms of money and political support.

What’s more, they argued, history has shown that unity is no guarantee of success. In 1970, Los Angeles Mayor Sam Yorty, leaders of the City Council and the head of the so-called Reining Commission all backed an overhaul of the charter.

Voters defeated it anyway, first in 1970 and then in 1971, ending that attempt to revamp city government.

In an interview Tuesday and in his remarks to his colleagues, Erwin Chemerinsky, the elected commission’s chairman, argued that the experience of the Reining Commission would not be repeated in 1999.

“That commission did all its work in secret, and then the recommendations sailed through the City Council,” he said. “Then they were surprised when opposition developed.”

By contrast, Chemerinsky said, the charter reform process of the past two years has been public and at times heated, so opponents already have made their views clear. “I just don’t think that it’s an analogous situation,” he said.