Charter Reform Loses Support of Employee Groups

Amid signs that the electorate is sharply divided over charter reform, supporters of overhauling Los Angeles’ civic constitution hit another snag on their way to the June election, as two leading city employee unions, including the one that represents rank-and-file police officers, voted to oppose the proposed changes.

For one union, the local chapter of the Service Employees International Union, the vote represented an about-face. The decision this week by the other union--the Los Angeles Police Protective League--took some observers by surprise, especially because a member of the league’s board joined in opposing the measure, which he helped draft and previously supported.

Those votes came as a new citywide private poll found that 41% of those surveyed indicated that they either definitely or probably would vote for the charter, which will appear on the June ballot. Thirty-six percent said they were inclined to vote against it.

With the election less than a month away, many people who were questioned remained unaware of the charter proposal or the debate surrounding it; 42% said they had not heard or seen anything about the issue. Still, that represents a sharp increase in public awareness since a Times poll last month found that less than 10% of those questioned knew enough about the charter to venture an opinion.

The new survey--conducted by the polling and consulting firm of Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin & Associates--showed that many voters remain undecided about the charter while others are divided over some of its provisions. Among other things, the new city constitution would strengthen the authority of the mayor, allow voters to approve an expansion of the City Council, clarify lines of authority for the Police Commission’s inspector general, and create a citywide network of advisory neighborhood councils under a newly created Department of Neighborhoods.

Supporters say that the new document would streamline city government, make officials more accountable and improve representation. Opponents range from those who believe the new charter gives too much power to the mayor to those who say that it does not go far enough in reshuffling the structure of city government.

George Kieffer, chairman of the city’s appointed charter commission, said he had mixed feelings about the poll results.

“It confirmed a concern I’ve always had with this issue,” he said. “This remains a pretty esoteric issue with many voters. It’s also encouraging because it shows a well-financed campaign can win.”

Mayor Richard Riordan is leading the fund-raising for charter proponents, who include City Atty. James Hahn, former Secretary of State Warren M. Christopher and a number of other city leaders. At a private fund-raiser this week, Riordan told supporters that the charter campaign has secured $1 million in donations and pledges. That was the campaign’s original goal, but Riordan said the early success has encouraged supporters to raise the goal to $1.5 million.

Meanwhile, opponents--who include state Sen. Tom Hayden (D-Los Angeles), City Council President John Ferraro and a majority of the 15-member council--are having a harder time raising money, but are turning some heads with their ability to convert previously supportive officials and organizations into opponents of the charter.

Some insiders who once supported the proposal are backing off, attributing their reconsideration to a combination of second thoughts and pressure from City Council members. In recent days, the Protective League and Local 347 of the Service Employees International Union have come out against the charter.

Local 347 had previously joined with other unions in support of the document.

But Julie Butcher, who heads that influential union, said its leaders reconsidered after studying the charter and concluding that it gives too much power to the mayor. The charter would make it marginally easier for the mayor to remove commissioners and city department heads, while restricting the council’s power to overturn the actions of city commissions and reducing the scope of the council’s management authority.

“This charter, by our measure, is flawed, particularly in the change of the balance of power,” Butcher said.

Butcher denied that pressure from council members or others influenced her union’s decision to oppose the charter. Others said that some council members are pushing hard to drum up opposition to the document and are reminding city employee groups that the council plays a key role in setting the terms of city contracts.

The latest and one of the strangest defectors from the ranks of charter supporters is Dennis Zine, a member of the elected charter commission and a director of the Police Protective League. As a member of the commission, Zine voted to approve the charter and to place it before voters in June.

This week, as a league director, he voted to oppose it.

“I wear two hats,” Zine said in a brief interview, declining to comment at length. “I supported the charter as a member of the elected commission, but I’m also a director of the league, and I voted this time as a director.”

With more than 9,000 members, the league’s endorsement is often sought by candidates for city office. The league in recent months has been at odds with Police Chief Bernard C. Parks over a number of issues. Parks is supporting the charter.

In explaining the league’s vote, President David Hepburn made it clear that the union’s unhappiness with Parks was part of the board’s decision. Among other things, Hepburn said, union leaders were concerned about additional powers the charter would give the chief to select his top deputies and about problems league officials believe it might create for the pension system. Hepburn added that the question of mayoral authority also weighed on league directors.

“With this mayor, maybe that won’t be a problem,” he said. “But we look at someone like our current chief, who may have political aspirations. To give him that kind of power . . . we would be very uncomfortable.”