No Veto for Term Limits Ordinance

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said Friday he will not veto a ballot measure that would ease term limits for the Los Angeles City Council and impose new restrictions on lobbyists.

“The question of extending term limits belongs rightly with the voters,” Villaraigosa said in a statement released by his office late Friday afternoon. “The city attorney has approved the ordinance as to form and legality. I am returning the term limits ordinance with my signature so the voters can decide.”

City Atty. Rocky Delgadillo and Controller Laura Chick had urged the mayor to veto the controversial measure, and two members of the Ethics Commission objected to the commission’s not having a chance to vet the reforms portion of the ordinance.

The mayor’s statement brought swift reaction from Delgadillo’s office:

The ballot measure “was written by City Hall lobbyists and weakens current ethics laws, places the city in legal peril and is misleading to the voters.”

“The City Council has ignored the opinion of its own lawyer, the city attorney, and made a troubling end-run around the Ethics Commission to ram through a term limits extension scheme by half-baked ethics measures,” said Nick Velasquez, Delgadillo’s spokesman.

Chick also issued a statement:

“As I said before, I don’t think this should go on the ballot in this form, so I’m sorry to hear that it will. However, I continue to have faith and confidence in the voters to reject this measure,” Chick said.

The council approved the measure unanimously Wednesday. If passed by a majority of voters Nov. 7, it would allow council members to serve three terms instead of the two they are limited to now.

Unless voters agree to the proposed change, seven of the 15 council members will have to leave office in 2009.

The measure has been a source of controversy since two groups -- the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce and the League of Women Voters -- presented it to council members in mid-July and asked them to put it on the fall ballot.

Chick and Delgadillo were unhappy that the three citywide offices -- mayor, controller and city attorney -- were not included in the proposal. Both must leave office when their second term expires in 2009.

Among other issues are whether the measure may be challenged in court because of its wording and the fact that a law firm hired to write the measure also represents City Hall lobbyists.

Another source of conflict has been why the Ethics Commission was unable to schedule a meeting to discuss, and possibly vote on, the measure before it went to the council for a vote this week.

E-mails obtained by The Times through a public records request show that only two of four ethics commissioners were able to attend a meeting that the commission’s executive director, LeeAnn Pelham, had been trying to schedule for Monday.

According to the e-mails, Commissioners Bill Boyarsky and Sean Treglia were available. But commission President Gil Garcetti and Commissioner Robert M. Saltzman, who was traveling on the East Coast, were not. (The fifth commission seat is vacant.)

In a July 27 e-mail, Pelham wrote that Garcetti was hoping to schedule a meeting. One day later she wrote:

“Commissioners -- Due to a scheduling conflict, Gil will be unable to make Monday’s meeting. As we will not have a quorum, therefore, we will not be holding a special meeting.”

Garcetti is the father of council President Eric Garcetti, who supports the measure and has been under pressure from his colleagues to put it on the November ballot.

Gil Garcetti could not be reached for comment Friday.