Charter Reform Balloting

* There are very good reasons to vote no on proposed Charter Measure 1.

The comments from the two charter commissions say it all. They compromised and gave the mayor what he wanted; they gave the City Council and the unions what the charter commissions thought they wanted. Nowhere was the public given anything. Protection against abuses was taken from the public and also the right to appeal to the City Council.

There are no checks and balances in this proposed charter. Even the president of the United States has to have his cabinet nominees approved by the Senate. Here the mayor can appoint department heads and commissions without any oversight. The departments and commissions run this city. The council will have no ability or authority to make departments deliver services because the mayor controls who heads a department and who sits on a commission. The advisory-only neighborhood councils along with the new proposed Department of Neighborhood Empowerment would be created by ordinances, so no one knows how or when they would operate or what they really could do.

The charter will be done by ordinance, which can be changed without public vote. If the public likes the sewer service charge, which is a prime example of government by ordinance, then they should be ready for more and more of the sewer service charge type of government that the proposed charter would bring. The public will find out, only after June 8, what the proposed charter really will not do for them

Vote no on June 8 and then work to make amendments to the current charter, just as we do as a country, which reflect needed safeguards and deliver services we all are taxed for government to provide.

GORDON MURLEY

President, San Fernando

Valley Federation

Woodland Hills

* Re “A Case of Mere Change Masquerading as a Cure-All,” May 30.

When I read City Council member Hal Bernson’s words, “Those of us who live in the Valley have long demanded more from our city government. Clearly, the Valley has gotten shortchanged in police and fire services, public works and other city services,” I wonder who should be held accountable.

If Bernson, a long-standing member of the City Council, can’t change the current system to do more for his constituents, perhaps it is time not only to replace him but the current City Charter as well.

The current system clearly doesn’t work for Valley residents. Can things really be any better for anyone who lives in the city of Los Angeles?

If it’s broken, fix it!

KENNETH W. KELLER

Valencia