Riordan Urges Voters to OK Charter Reform

With battle lines hardening between supporters and opponents of Los Angeles’ proposed new City Charter, Mayor Richard Riordan on Wednesday urged voters to turn out and approve the measure in order to improve local government’s accountability, while critics called it a waste of taxpayer money that would upset the balance of power at City Hall.

In his monthly radio address, Riordan returned time and again to the issue of charter reform, which he sees as a way to bring order to government, to attract businesses to Los Angeles and to create better representation for neighborhoods.

“Give a voice to the people,” Riordan implored, asking voters to go to the polls in what is expected to be a low-turnout election on June 8.

Riordan used his radio address to emphasize the importance of improving city government’s accountability. Later in the day, his staff released documents that aides say reinforce that point by demonstrating that an unelected City Hall official intervened to further delay construction of a long-promised emergency center in the San Fernando Valley.

Memos by Acting City Administrative Officer Paul Cauley urged city managers and others to postpone a groundbreaking in West Hills, where the city has planned to build one of two new 911 centers approved by voters in 1992. Construction was supposed to start next week, but Cauley asked city officials to wait until a review of an alternative site could be completed.

Although Cauley defended that move as a prudent way to let the City Council examine the two sites, Police Chief Bernard C. Parks complained about further delay in the overdue project, and Riordan aides said it highlighted problems with a charter that gives too much power to unelected officials and makes it difficult to hold elected leaders accountable for their actions.

“There was a policy decision by both branches of the government here,” said Kelly Martin, Riordan’s chief of staff. “Who is Paul Cauley to stop it? Who should voters hold accountable for this?”

Effect on Balance of Power Debated

Meanwhile, charter foes also are working the electorate, with council members Jackie Goldberg and Ruth Galanter and a number of their colleagues warning that they believe the proposed document would create more problems than it solves.

“Not all change is reform,” Goldberg said during a sometimes heated panel discussion Tuesday night. Taken together, the changes to the existing charter would enhance the mayor’s power at the expense of the council, Goldberg said, upsetting what she and many other council members see as a delicately balanced power-sharing between the mayor’s office and the council chamber.

Galanter agreed, adding that she does not believe the city’s problems for the most part are traceable to problems with the current charter.

“I don’t happen to believe that the charter is in such bad shape that it is interfering with day-to-day workings of the government,” she said. The new charter, Galanter said, would divert money from essential city services to a new Department of Neighborhood Empowerment and the neighborhood councils it would coordinate.

Although Galanter and Goldberg are two of the leading council opponents of the document, both did say that there are some aspects of the proposal that they favor. They suggested that voters reject the proposal and then consider smaller charter amendments in future elections that would put in place popular ideas such as clarifying the role of the Police Commission’s inspector general, the official charged with monitoring discipline in the LAPD.

Erwin Chemerinsky, chairman of the elected commission, rejected that argument. Chemerinsky, who ran for charter commissioner at Goldberg’s suggestion, has become increasingly critical of the council in recent weeks, as various members have dropped away from supporting the charter and are campaigning to defeat it.

“If they can kill this charter, they’ll kill any charter,” he said Tuesday. Chemerinsky and, to a lesser degree, appointed commission chairman George Kieffer also have complained about the council members’ lobbying of organized labor. Both chairmen say labor organizations that once supported the charter have come out against it in recent days partly because they must secure members’ pay raises from the council.

During their panel discussion, Goldberg brushed off any suggestion of council arm-twisting. The only lobbying by council members, she said, has been to point out what she and others see as defects in the proposal being submitted to voters.

“When the mayor does it, it’s called leadership,” she said. “When we do it, it’s criticized.”

Opposition Has Influenced Debate

The council’s opposition to the charter has had effects on the debate. In addition to complicating the political calculus for labor, it also has given charter opponents a pool of powerful and informed spokesmen, and it has created some backlash, particularly in the San Fernando Valley. The Daily News, once a lukewarm charter reform voice, has become increasingly outspoken in its support as the council and labor have turned against the document.

Secession supporters also have come out in favor of the charter, arguing that whether the Valley breaks away from Los Angeles, they see the proposed charter as an improvement that is in the region’s overall interest.

Richard Close, a leading Valley homeowner representative and secession advocate, said the issue boiled down to how satisfied residents are with their government.

“Do you think this city is well-managed?” he asked rhetorically. “If you’re satisfied with the status quo, you should vote against this new charter.” If not, he added, voters should approve the changes.