Charter Fight Reveals City Council’s Power

The fight on charter reform today is about the past, but Los Angeles voters need to think about the future.

On one side are Mayor Richard Riordan and his friends in the business community. On the other side is the City Council, demonstrating its power over labor and--revealingly--lobbyists. In the middle, although strongly in favor of the new charter, is the civic community of the city. It doesn’t have money or the proven ability to walk precincts, but it, too, is subject to City Council squeezing, especially the nonprofit organizations that need council support for the services. And on the sidelines sit the voters. How are they to know which way to turn?

The proposed charter was born badly: twins, when it should have been a single birth. The odds against success with two charter reform plans was equated with the proverbial snowball in hell. Despite the differences between the appointed and elected commissions, they managed something of a miracle and came up with one proposal. What made it especially strong was that it also had the backing of all the major stakeholders: business, labor, the civic community, respected general managers and the City Council in the person of its president, John Ferraro.

No one won everything. Everyone compromised. It is an ideal compact for governance. What gave the unified charter emotional momentum, however, was a typical L.A. kind of political activity: opposition to the mayor. The most dramatic 12 hours in the two-year history of the reform effort began the night Riordan urged the elected commission to reject the unified charter because it did not give him the power to fire general managers unilaterally. Everyone opposed him, including business, which had been advocating a strong mayor from the outset.

The next day, each of the stakeholder groups spoke to the appointed commission, making the arguments they had made the night before. Without much discussion, the appointed commission--rejecting the document they’d written themselves--voted unanimously for the unified charter. It was electric. The crowd broke out in applause.

Within the week, the mayor caved, and “allowed” the elected commission to vote in favor of the unified charter. It was the moment of success, but it held the seeds of failure.

When the charter came before the City Council, it became clear that the one group in the city that had the most experience with government had no opportunity to digest it and bring its wisdom to the issue. Sure, some had watched it throughout. Some had opposed it from the beginning. But two things stood out: There was a fast-approaching deadline; and because it was unified, and because the elected commission had the authority to put it on the ballot no matter what the council did, there was no opportunity to change it.

The council supported putting it on the ballot in recognition of the inevitable. The mayor pressed his advantage with a number of points after the charter was agreed to, and, against the wishes of the two commissions, negotiated a deal with the council president to implement the charter in one year instead of two. The compromise fulfilled the needs of the negotiators to meet halfway, but left a bad taste in many mouths because it puts a lot of pressure on the council to pass the implementing ordinances, it will disrupt city government for one year and then again for a second year with a new mayor. It would have been easier to digest if it had been implemented at the beginning of a new administration--as suggested by the National League of Cities--when both the mayor and half of the council members would be coming into office. While the mayor might be eager to use his new powers, it is understandable that those who have held it for decades are uneasy about change.

The wall began to crack and the tide of opposition rose. The opposition was primarily from the City Council. With business and labor publicly committed to reform, the council began putting pressure on lobbyists. They moved on to labor, and now the opposition is not just token. Voters--never wildly engaged in the process--are left to wonder who is right.

They might consider that organized labor has put itself in a very strange place. Labor can’t complain that it didn’t know what was in the charter. It was there from the beginning, winning many of its points. Community groups have said they are afraid to take printed material prepared by the charter commissions because it might anger their councilperson, and there are efforts to intimidate the voluntary associations.

This charter is not about this mayor or this City Council. The unified charter is an opportunity to move the city forward. A stronger mayor does not a tyrant make. It is no different than the balance of power that exists in every most major cities. The interesting thing about this endgame on the charter is the enormous power of the City Council. Is that really the best force for good in Los Angeles?