The devil Bell knows

T

he people of Bell

can hardly be blamed for wanting to throw the bums out. By bums, of course, they mean the city leaders who have enriched themselves at the taxpayers’ expense.

At first, the nearly $800,000 salary of former City Manager Robert Rizzo was as puzzling as it was outrageous. Perhaps there was an explanation? Maybe the veteran public employee was pulling off some sort of magic — such as maintaining extraordinary fiscal soundness for the city in the midst of bad times — that could have made him worth such a sum?

But as Times reporters dug deeper into the city’s secrets, they uncovered layers of mismanagement and manipulation, some of it possibly illegal. To sum up the sleaze thus far: Voters armed with too little information approved a change in city management that handed too much control to greedy bureaucrats and elected officials. Residents pay higher tax rates in Bell than in Beverly Hills. On top of that, they were overcharged $2.9 million in taxes. Their public services were cut while various officials benefited from city loans and handsomer- than-usual salaries.

Eyes have been opened, along with criminal investigations. Much has been said about how the 40,000 or so working-class residents of Bell were not as aware of city practices as they should have been. Of the 10,000 registered voters, fewer than 400 cast ballots on the crucial question of whether Bell should become a charter city, which gave it more local control, including freedom from state restrictions on municipal salaries. Many residents are not citizens, so their political clout is minimal. But let’s be honest: How many people show up at the council meetings of smaller cities throughout the state, no matter the demographics?

In the wake of the scandal, there is renewed attention to the workings of municipal governments. Investigations of possible wrongdoing are underway in Vernon and Maywood, neighbors of Bell.

The lessons learned about the need for transparency and public involvement in government are important ones. On a more practical level, the Legislature passed AB 900, which returns the tax overcharge to the residents of Bell rather than to the schools, as state law usually requires. At least seven other pieces of reform legislation were introduced in Sacramento; legislators shamefully balked at the two most important bills, which would have required easily accessible disclosure of many public employees’ salaries, but did pass others designed to curb excessive public salaries.

But none of this has solved the problems of the city itself, where residents are full of rage but without a plan that will pull Bell from its current crisis.

At a recent City Council meeting, hundreds of residents descended on the small chamber, demanding the resignations of four out of five council members. (Councilman Lorenzo Velez, who did not make the nearly $100,000-a-year salary that his colleagues earned, has not been targeted.) But the call for immediate dismantling of the current leadership, although understandable, is wrong for the city.

The sudden disappearance of practically the entire City Council would leave Bell without a quorum that could meet to conduct city business. For the moment, the council, as rotten as its behavior has been, is at least somewhat answerable to the public. If the members resigned, the interim city manager who was brought on board after Rizzo’s resignation — and who is an unpopular choice among many Bell residents — would be in charge until a new council was elected. Without a council in place, he would be directly accountable to no one.

Bell would be better off waiting until March, when three council seats (including Velez’s) are up for election. It might be possible to time a recall election to coincide with that if voters want to remove the two other council members.

Getting rid of the old won’t do much good if Bell can’t replace it with stable, committed and competent leadership. Residents should be cautious about newly prominent figures who shout “recall!” the loudest; they should find out who is funding the firebrands and what their backgrounds are in the city, demanding the kind of transparency they never got from the current council. Forums should be established to vet potential council candidates’ ideas for openness, voter engagement and other reforms. Assemblyman Hector de la Torre (D-South Gate), who has experience in municipal reform dating from his days on his city’s council, has been offering helpful advice, but residents could also use the organizational assistance of reputable nonprofit groups such as the League of Women Voters or the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University.

A new council, when it is in place, ought to investigate whether Bell would be better off joining with neighboring municipalities to form a larger city that could operate more efficiently and be less prone to the civic malfeasance that has plagued several towns in southeast Los Angeles County. Now that the city’s charter has been revealed as a mechanism to enrich city leaders, it should be reviewed to see whether other provisions work against the interests of residents. Voter registration drives would increase the number of those who can cast ballots, and get-out-the-vote campaigns would maximize the number who actually do.

Bell’s City Council is duly abashed now, and its every move is under scrutiny; it is more likely than ever before to listen to its constituents. The people of Bell should take advantage of this to demand immediate reforms. Those include holding council meetings in a room large enough to accommodate all who attend; posting public documents online, such as the minutes of previous council meetings; examining whether other fees or taxes have been raised improperly; and instituting open budget reviews, with full public participation.

The justified anger of people who were duped by their public servants has led to a welcome new era of civic awareness. Now comes the job of transforming that awareness into a commitment to build a responsible city government nearly from scratch.