Mayor Upset Over Proposed Charter Start Date

Proving that nothing involving reform of Los Angeles’ charter is easy, the discovery of a last-minute insertion into the compromise proposal now winding its way toward the ballot threw the debate back into turmoil Thursday.

The provision, which the appointed reform panel adopted without public comment or discussion, appears on Page 16 of the proposal. It provides that, if the new charter is approved by voters in June, it not go into effect until July 1, 2001.

Mayor Richard Riordan’s last day in office is June 30, 2001, so if the new charter is adopted as written, he will play no role in implementing the city constitution drafted largely by a process he set in motion. The so-called unified charter, which represents a collection of compromises between the elected and appointed commissions, will be considered in its final form by both panels Monday.

Although Riordan has long argued that a reformed charter would benefit future administrations rather than his own, the long delay in implementation angered his aides.

They see the appointed panel’s move as a deliberate attempt to exclude Riordan from using provisions of the charter that he fought to have included.

Stoking their unhappiness further was the fact that the implementation provision came to light while Riordan was in Brazil on business for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which he chairs.

In more than two years of public meetings, informational sessions, task force briefings, conference committee debates and full sessions of the appointed and elected commissions, there has never been a formal proposal on when the charter should take effect.

“It’s puzzling at least and concerning at most,” said Deputy Mayor Noelia Rodriguez, who was with Riordan in Curitiba, Brazil, until Wednesday night and arrived home Thursday to discover the charter provision. “Anyone who thinks this was what people intended is dealing in fantasy land.”

Specifically, critics of the move questioned why it should take two years to make some of the more fundamental changes suggested by the new charter proposal.

Why, for instance, should rules controlling hiring and firing of city department heads and commissioners be delayed until 2001 when the language governing them is relatively straightforward?

Or, as Riordan chief of staff Kelly Martin asked, why should modifications to the city’s emergency preparedness system be delayed merely to accommodate a change in administration?

“What if there’s an earthquake in the next two years?” she asked.

On the other hand, advocates of delayed implementation, and even some critics, agreed that there are some areas in which it will take time to make the proposed changes. Restructuring of departments in areas such as city finance, for instance, is a complicated undertaking that could take months or longer.

Even there, however, there is disagreement about whether two years would be needed.

George Kieffer, chairman of the appointed commission, said Thursday that the language on implementation was not intended to slight the mayor, but to provide for a smooth transition to the new charter.

“One of the things that other cities have underestimated is the difficulty of transition,” he said. “In the scheme of 75 years, two years isn’t that much.”

Kieffer said the 2001 date was not chosen deliberately to correspond to Riordan’s leaving office. It will take months, even years, he said, for the council and mayor to adopt ordinances and other measures that would support the new charter.

The two-year implementation buffer, he added, should allow for that to happen without confusion or mistakes.

Still, Kieffer also said that there are potential political benefits to delaying implementation because it would remove any fear that the charter represented an attempt by Riordan to bolster his own power over the city bureaucracy and council.

“This would just take that off the table,” Kieffer said, adding that although that issue was not paramount to him, it was a consideration.

Indeed, Riordan and his office often have made a similar argument, stressing that the goal of charter reform is efficient and effective government, not an enhancement of Riordan’s authority.

That has been particularly true in debates over the power of the mayor’s office, including the authority to fire department heads and city commissioners.

Each time Riordan has been accused of trying to use the charter to accumulate power, he has said his support of those provisions was not intended to make himself more powerful but to make his successor more accountable.

What seemed to surprise and anger the Riordan administration was the sweeping nature of the implementation delay--along with its quiet adoption in a process that has seen few issues skip by without prolonged discussion.

Erwin Chemerinsky, chairman of the elected commission, said he and Kieffer had arrived at the implementation date without much debate because both had assumed that the mayor’s office and others wanted the charter to take effect with a new administration and council. “It was simply an assumption,” he said. “If people object, we can take that up.”

Nevertheless, Chemerinsky said there was good reason to delay implementation. Cities such as New Orleans struggled with putting their new charters into effect, he said, adding that Los Angeles voters might accept an increase in mayoral power more easily if they knew it was not going to benefit Riordan.

After weeks of debate, amendments and hardball politics, the final compromise package appears destined for approval by the two panels, which often have eyed one another suspiciously.

On Monday, the appointed commission is scheduled to take up the unified charter in its afternoon session. Kieffer predicted a brief meeting and said his colleagues will support the proposal. Assuming that they do, the elected commission will then take the final package up at its evening session.

If both commissions approve the charter, the City Council would then consider it. A strong majority of council members have indicated their intention to pass the compromise package without significant amendments. If that consensus breaks down, the elected commission could go forward with its recommendations because it has the power to put its work on the ballot with or without the council’s approval.