Has Riordan Seen the Light?

One of the ironies of Los Angeles’ adventures in charter reform is that the appointed commission, widely expected to be little more than a patsy for a City Council hostile to change, has emerged as the class act. Through its quiet discussions over the past two years and sincere efforts to incorporate the broadest perspectives, this group has demonstrated precisely the sort of vision that Mayor Richard Riordan has lacked on this issue.

Last week, the 21-member panel took just over an hour to give its unanimous assent to a set of compromise provisions worked out between this panel and the separate charter commission group that voters elected in 1997. Riordan’s major beef with this consensus package is that the ability of future mayors to dismiss general managers could be checked by a two-thirds vote of the City Council--a prudent approach, in our view. In contrast, the elected panel had proposed giving the mayor unlimited authority to fire managers, apparently the only element of charter reform that Riordan cares about. Riordan fought the compromise and won when the elected commission voted Tuesday against the unified charter.

On Friday, some members of the elected commission expressed reservations about Riordan’s all-or-nothing approach. The mayor suddenly relented, saying he was willing to have the issue of firing general managers placed on the ballot, separate from charter reform--”provided that the overall charter represents significant reform.” What that means, only the mayor knows.

We have no problem with the mayor throwing his weight around, which he has on charter reform as never before. The mayor ought to twist arms when necessary, ought to lead. Riordan called in every possible chit in pushing his version of charter reform: Every angle was played, and his endorsement was dangled before potential political candidates on the elected commission.

After six years as mayor, Riordan seemed comfortable acting as a politician. But what was it all for? Simply making sure that future mayors could fire department heads without interference from the City Council.

What has been so disappointing is that Riordan chose to make this his biggest statement as mayor. Think about the sorts of public policy challenges he has failed to take up, like Los Angeles’ crunch in affordable housing, among the worst in the nation. Even on issues the mayor supports, such as better bus service and a return of the National Football League to Los Angeles, his support is broadly seen as either sporadic or lukewarm or both. When he finally puts all of his muscle behind a cause, it’s one that would merely enhance the administrative power of the mayor’s office.

Riordan’s new interest in compromise, if it holds, would yield a better result for the city because it would place a single, more understandable reform measure on the ballot. With two proposals, the defenders of one draft charter would be the opponents of the other. The campaign would be expensive and nasty and, in the end, probably fruitless.

The elected commission should reconsider its rejection of the compromise package. We urge it to do so when it meets Monday. We expect the mayor to have the courage of his new convictions.