Appointed Panel OKs Compromise Charter Plan

Los Angeles’ appointed charter commission, backed by a wide array of civic organizations, unanimously approved a compromise reform package Wednesday.

The appointed commissioners’ vote came less than 24 hours after the city’s deeply divided elected reform panel rejected the same proposal by a 9-6 margin. And although the elected commission’s session was a rollicking, hard-to-predict affair, the appointed panel’s was controlled and the outcome most striking for its consensus.

“I feel very positive about where we are,” Chairman George Kieffer said after the vote. “This is a document that has the consensus of the public.”

The appointed commission’s strong show of unanimity could roil the increasingly complicated charter debate in several ways. It sends a message to members of the elected commission that a vote to reconsider Tuesday’s decision would be welcomed by the appointed panel; it makes it difficult for the City Council, which has final approval over the appointed commission’s recommendations, to tinker with the proposals before submitting them to voters; and, in the event that no agreement can be reached with the elected commission, it offers a demonstration of the breadth of support for the appointed panel’s work. That could help it in a campaign against the elected commission’s proposed charter.

After Tuesday’s votes by the elected commission, the hopes for compromise seemed all but gone, as a majority voted to reject the so-called unified charter and 10 members of the 15-member commission agreed to keep talking about a compromise only if the appointed panel was willing to accept a number of conditions that it already had rejected.

On Wednesday, appointed commissioners grumbled about those conditions and votes.

Commissioner Joe Mandel denounced the “hardcore politics” that he said was implied by the elected commission’s action. Others were similarly annoyed, and no member of the commission suggested that the appointed panel consider adopting any of the elected commission’s conditions.

Instead, the commission heard testimony from a variety of local leaders, all of whom endorsed the compromise--some because of its specific proposals but more because of the broad support it enjoys.

Xandra Kayden of the League of Women Voters commended the compromise for its ability to draw consensus. “That is really more important than the specifics of the document,” she said.

Panel Urged to Approve Compromise

Similarly, the Rev. Madison Schockley, representing a coalition of African American and Jewish leaders, encouraged the appointed commissioners to avoid the course chosen by the elected commission when it rejected the compromise proposal in favor of its own charter.

“You have an opportunity to do something that was missed last night, which is not to give a normal response but a noble response,” he said, contrasting what he described as the elected commission’s “extreme, uncompromising document” with the alternative, “a consensus document.”

On Tuesday, Mayor Richard Riordan urged the elected commissioners to vote down the compromise. He called on them to have faith in their decisions and promised to back them all the way to election day.

He was opposed by the commission’s chairman, Erwin Chemerinsky, who argued that the best chance of success at the polls was to present a unified charter. But Riordan won the day, carrying not only the votes of commissioners who often agree with him but also those of a few commissioners who were dissatisfied with elements of the proposed compromise the mayor was willing to accept.

Despite the elected commission’s rejection of the compromise, Kieffer and Chemerinsky vowed to continue their efforts at reaching common ground.

Chemerinsky said he was deeply disappointed that his colleagues had voted against the compromise package presented to them, but added that he has not lost hope in a single charter, perhaps one that reflects the agreed-upon elements of the two packages and then offers voters a set of options on the more controversial provisions. Among those could be the hot button questions of whether the City Council should be expanded, whether the mayor should have the unilateral authority to fire department heads, and whether community councils would best be advisory or vested with some decision-making powers.

In each of those cases and a few others, the two panels are far apart.

Given the elected commission vote, Chemerinsky acknowledged that the hopes of compromise are fading. As a result, he said, he is prepared to proceed with two separate charter proposals if that is the only option left.

“If no compromise can be reached, we’ll go forward,” he said. “If there have to be two proposals, I want it to be the clearest, most substantive conversation that we can have about two visions for city government.”

Kieffer made the same point, and noted that if the two charters compete against one another, he believes voters will support the one favored by his commission.

If each commission offers voters its own version of charter reform, each will bring its own brand of support. The elected panel comes with Riordan, who brings both political popularity and deep pockets and who vowed Tuesday to back the elected charter “every inch of the way.”

The appointed commission draws its main support from the City Council, which is neither rich nor popular. Other leading city officials, including City Atty. James Hahn and Controller Rick Tuttle, have favored it over the elected panel’s proposal, but none of them enjoys the recognition that Riordan has.

Support of Civic Groups

By approving the compromise package, the appointed commission also probably secures the support of such leading civic groups as the Urban League, the League of Women Voters and the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce.

Labor, meanwhile, is divided between the two charters. City workers support the appointed panel’s draft, while building and trades unions generally like the elected version.

San Fernando Valley leaders have generally supported the elected panel. And big business, although it urged a compromise, now will be forced to choose between a City Council it generally dislikes and a mayor it generally favors.

Given all that, political analysts are divided over who would be favored to prevail in such a campaign.

On Wednesday, two of the region’s leading political consultants came to opposite conclusions about who they believe would enjoy the advantage.

“My intuition is that [Riordan] has the potential to make a strong case for his version of charter reform,” said Arnold Steinberg, a Valley-based political consultant who has worked with Riordan but who has not been hired to work on this campaign. “Most voters don’t really understand what’s going on, and the mayor is popular. . . . If he can get out there and show them that he’s doing this for posterity, not to enhance his own power, I think that will be very effective.”

But Rick Taylor, another seasoned political consultant, disagreed.

“As long as there are competing charters on the ballot and as long as both are relatively well-financed, both will go down,” he said. “When voters are confused, they say no. When voters are unsure, they say no.”

Taylor based that argument in part on his belief that organized labor will decide to oppose the elected commission’s charter, a document that calls for a possible option for elected neighborhood councils--which are opposed by construction unions--and for giving the mayor the power to fire department heads without council approval--which is opposed by city workers.

If labor turns on Riordan, that could prove particularly difficult in the June election, Taylor said, because at least one hotly contested council seat, the 14th District, is likely to produce a runoff. That runoff election would appear on the same June ballot, and if labor members turn out to vote in that race, Taylor predicted that they would vote against the elected commission charter.

“I may be wrong,” Taylor said. “I’ve been wrong before. But I believe two charters means that charter reform is dead.”

One interesting question is the role of the city’s two leading newspapers in the campaign. Experts sharply disagree about the significance of editorial endorsements in the coming campaign. According to Steinberg, newspaper endorsements can be especially influential in low turnout elections, as the June ballot on charter reform is expected to be.

That could be important on election day, Steinberg said. “The kinds of people they reach are disproportionately the same kinds of people who vote,” he said.

Again, Taylor disagreed. Committed voters, who cast most of the ballots in low turnout elections, he said, are “precisely the type of people who make up their minds without needing editorial endorsements.”