Charter: Fight Isn’t Over

More than two years ago, when the Los Angeles City Council grudgingly appointed its own charter reform commission, the move was widely seen for what it was: an attempt to block Mayor Richard Riordan’s initiative to rewrite the seven-decade-old charter. It was more a political counter-stroke than an acknowledgment that the city’s antiquated rules badly need overhaul.

So, only the most wild-eyed optimists believed then that the council would do what it did Tuesday: vote unanimously to put the unified charter--the consensus of two reform commissions and dozens of business, labor and community groups--before voters on June 8.

The council did the right thing by deciding to let the voters choose, even if members found themselves in a high-stakes squeeze play that left them little room to maneuver. In recent weeks, the elected and appointed reform commissions, which all this time had been debating and writing new rules for the city, had done the seemingly impossible by agreeing on a joint draft. Had the council rejected this draft, the elected commission could have put the same measure--or a version the council liked even less--before voters anyway.

Despite the accolades council members heaped on the two commission chairmen, Erwin Chemerinsky and George Kieffer, Tuesday’s hearing was no love fest. The vote followed a third, long session of testy debate, with a handful of members making it clear that their vote to put the measure on the ballot was also a vote to campaign against its passage in June.

Their refrain is familiar, tired and wrong: Council members Jackie Goldberg, Nate Holden and Rudy Svorinich Jr. insist they see the potential for corruption and misdeeds and more public frustration with City Hall in provisions that increase the authority of the mayor.

The reality is otherwise. As Councilman Mike Feuer observed, the proposed charter is “more inclusive than the status quo” and offers Los Angeles the opportunity for a more efficient city government. It does so by curbing council micro-managing as it also streamlines a byzantine financial and management structure and creates opportunities for residents to participate in decisions that affect their neighborhoods. The charter that voters will consider in June is not perfect, but it represents enormous progress.

It’s time Los Angeles residents had a charter that encourages their involvement and a government that is responsive and innovative. The path to that goal is still long. Council members would better serve the city by joining, not blocking, this vital journey.