Erwin Chemerinsky and George Kieffer

It’s hardly surprising that George D. Kieffer and Erwin Chemerinsky had not met until two years ago. Never mind that both are lawyers; there are tens of thousands in Los Angeles. Never mind that they both can wax enthusiastic about the arcana of constitutional drafting and municipal governance. What’s surprising is the deep respect, and evident friendship, these two thoughtful men now share, especially in recent weeks, as the charter-reform commissions they each lead have clashed sharply over the shape of a new city government.

Kieffer, 51, heads a panel appointed by the City Council to redraft the 700-page monster of a charter that has governed--many would say hamstrung--city operations since 1925. A senior partner at Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, in Los Angeles, Kieffer handles button-down business and government clients. He is married, has two sons and writes and performs popular music. Service as a UC Regent and on the California Community Colleges Board of Governors laid the groundwork for a book on the strategy of meetings. That book has come in handy in the hundreds of charter-reform meetings he says he has attended over the past two years.

Chemerinsky, 45, chairs the reform commission voters elected in 1997. He has taught constitutional law at USC since coming to Los Angeles from Chicago 16 years ago and is a frequent commentator on issues ranging from the O.J. Simpson double-murder trial to the impeachment of President Bill Clinton. Chemerinsky, who is married and the father of four, admits, “I didn’t know what I was getting in for” when he agreed to lead the panel. But he has nonetheless drawn praise for his courtesy and patience, even toward the critics and crackpots who have come to testify.

The coming weeks will test their friendship. Both panels have agreed on the broad outlines of a single, so-called unified charter to go before voters in June. But big sticking points remain, including the scope of the mayor’s authority and the selection of neighborhood councils. Time is growing uncomfortably short, even for these skilled meeting managers; the commissions must submit their final draft to the City Council by the end of the month. Kieffer and Chemerinsky spoke with The Times in a conference room at the USC law school.

Question: Is L.A.’s current charter really the target of the frustration vented at meetings of your commissions or is the city inevitably the repository of public anger at government generally?

Erwin Chemerinsky: There’s tremendous frustration in our country with government at all levels. . . . People want much more in the way of government services than they’re willing to pay taxes to provide, and that inevitably leads to frustration. One of the worries I have about charter reform is that it will raise expectations of government change that can’t be met. Charter reform by itself isn’t going to mean smaller class sizes, more police officers or better garbage pickup. But charter reform can create institutions better able to do all that in the long run.

George Kieffer: There’s an attitude toward government in Los Angeles I’d characterize as: “You leave us alone, we’ll leave you alone.” . . . Given that culture, sometimes it’s difficult to assess the degree of discontent with the government. There is frustration, but to then assume that the public is going to take that out by reforming their government is a jump in Los Angeles. In New York, there would be an immediate political fight with heroes and villains.

Q: What are the special needs and traditions of Los Angeles that you felt were important for the charter to reflect?

GK: One is a suspicion of power in one place. Los Angeles is the first big-city government to come out of the Progressive Era. The Progressive tradition valued dispersion of power . . . because corruption and fraud were a greater fear here than in Eastern cities. Our [1925 charter] protected against this to a very high degree, limiting the authority and autonomy that city officials sometimes need. That trade-off is always there, and Los Angeles has sided historically, culturally, individually with a suspicion of power and authority.

EC: Also, given the nonpartisan nature of elections for City Council and given how the council has tended to function, Los Angeles government has many separate power centers. For example, there’s no single person who can speak for a coalition of City Council members, and it’s not just the City Council and mayor.

Q: What’s more important to residents, access to government or excellent city services?

EC: Unquestionably, better services. For most people in Los Angeles or any city, government matters to them only insofar as it provides what they need . . . . So long as that’s provided, the institutional arrangements are really secondary to most residents. People also want a sense that their voice matters. There’s a real cry in this city for empowerment. Every place we went, people wanted some form of neighborhood councils.

GK: I agree that services are paramount . . . [but] I would disagree with the cry or demand for an involvement. I think there’s a substantial segment of the population with the view that “If it’s working, I don’t have to worry about it.”

Q: How do people get better services through a new charter?

EC: There can’t be a single, most important thing to get better services. There have to be many things done in the hope that they will cumulatively do that. I do think that some increase in the mayor’s authority over departments, to make them more accountable, is key. Smaller City Council districts are important so it’s easier for council members to respond to constituents. Neighborhood councils can . . . speak for local residents. The hope is that, cumulatively, these kinds of reforms will create a government that is more responsive and accountable.

Q: There is much talk about giving residents more power under a new charter. But Los Angeles has a history of extremely low voter turnout and a lack of involvement. What’s reasonable to expect, given this tradition?

GK: To the extent that the charter can facilitate better services and more communication, then it can also increase citizen participation. But, separately, just as we’ve made a recommitment to our own families [to take] responsibility for our schools and communities, citizens of this city have to make a recommitment to civic involvement, as part of an overall civic reform that has to occur in this city. That includes educating ourselves as to how the government works so we can discuss it. One of the most frustrating things about this process has been the absence of information and knowledge among the public regarding municipal government. The charter is only one piece of this civic reform.

Q: Won’t neighborhood councils, no matter how they are selected or what powers they have, benefit the richer, better-organized neighborhoods, thereby further disadvantaging poorer, less-well-organized ones?

EC: [City Councilman] Mark Ridley-Thomas’ 8th District Empowerment Congress belies that. When you look at how active and how successful it’s been in South Central Los Angeles, I think it shows that participation in neighborhoods isn’t going to vary based on race or wealth.

GK: I don’t think this is an issue of disparity. These neighborhood councils will permit and then encourage these communities to take control of their own communities and make their own lives better. I don’t think that’s different in South Central than in Brentwood.

Q: But can a new charter really bring people together as a city? How will a new charter cut across the many economic, racial and other divisions here?

GK: It already has. When you undertake a civic project, winning is completing it in a satisfactory way. When you do that, you have brought people together with a sense of “we can do that.” It can lead to the next enterprise that the city takes on . . . .

Q: How will you engage voters on charter reform given that, for most residents, city services generally work?

EC: People are now talking about something that virtually no one knew about when we started this process. Monday night, when I checked in for a flight at LAX, the guy behind the gate who took my ticket said, “So what’s going to happen with charter reform?” I’m hearing it from the parents of my kids’ friends. That seems to me the key, that we’ve brought charter reform to public consciousness. Now, of course, we have to explain to people how this really is going to mean a better government and better services for them.

GK: Our job was, first, to craft the best charter for the greatest number of people. In some ways, our own role in its passage may be as private citizens. Both Erwin and I are committed, as individuals, to speak in favor of this and to talk about how we see it improving the lives of individual citizens.

Q: Will voter approval of a new charter derail the movement for Valley secession?

EC: I think it’s been a mistake for charter reform to be presented as an alternative to Valley secession. Those who want secession are likely to want secession whether or not there’s a new charter. Those who oppose secession will do so whether or not there’s a new charter. My view is whether there is secession or not, it’s essential that there be a new charter for Los Angeles.

GK: I would say there is a middle group of citizens in areas like the Valley and San Pedro who may want to give some of the tools that have been put in the new charter an opportunity to work, and this may influence that middle swing group, but I don’t think it will influence the activists who, frankly, have told me they hope charter reform will fail.

Q: Will the daily life of L.A. residents change under a new charter?

GK: It is a change you’ll see over time. First, people who are inclined to get into government will have greater confidence that they will make a difference and that the government itself will not be as big a hindrance to them making a difference. Therefore, the charter will attract better people to government. . . . Second, the charter will sweep away some of the barnacles and cobwebs from the mechanical operation of the government. Contracts will be done more quickly, decisions on land use and permits will be made more quickly, and the city will operate more efficiently. But this won’t occur overnight.

Q: Who is in charge now in Los Angeles?

GK: The mayor of the city is the chief political leader of the city. He or she, therefore, is not necessarily the best day-to-day manager of the city, and we seldom elect political leaders to be managers. On the other hand, the mayor has the responsibility for the executive branch and ought to have that responsibility more than the Council does. But it’s not always a question of the mayor versus the Council; sometimes, it’s a question of politicians versus professional city employees.

EC: No one is in charge of any government. The president isn’t in charge of the federal government; there are three branches. The governor of California isn’t in charge of the state government; you have a Legislature there. It would also be wrong to say the mayor is in charge of the city government; it shouldn’t be that way. There are many people who have to share power for the city government to work. The mayor is certainly the chief political officer, but he’s much more than that. He’s also the chief executive officer, not in the business sense, but as the person ultimately responsible for managing the executive branch, he should be held accountable when it fails. I think that we need to increase the authority of the mayor in some areas, clarify lines of power, and we should have the Council functioning more as a legislative body, formulating policy and doing oversight.*

“Chemerinsky: One of the worries I have about charter reform is that it will raise expectations of government change that can’t be met. Charter reform by itself isn’t going to mean smaller class sizes, more police officers or better garbage pickup.

Kieffer: I agree that services are paramount. . .(but) I would disagree with the cry or demand fo ran involvement. I think there’s a substantial segment of the population with the view tht ‘If it’s working I don’t have to worry about it.”