Bane Pushes Proposal for Bigger Boards of Supervisors

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors would increase from five members to nine under a constitutional amendment introduced by Assemblyman Tom Bane (D-Tarzana)--and strongly opposed by the board’s Republican majority.

An apparent beneficiary of Bane’s bill would be state Sen. Alan Robbins (D-Tarzana), a political ally, business associate and self-described protege. Robbins has declared his intention to seek a supervisorial seat in the San Fernando Valley, which he hopes will be created through a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Justice Department to force the supervisors to redraw district lines.

Bane’s proposal would limit the size of any supervisor’s district to 1 million constituents. Each of the five supervisors in Los Angeles County--the only jurisdiction that would be affected by the measure--represents an average of 1.68 million of the county’s estimated 8.4 million residents.

“I don’t want a supervisor having to represent more than 1 million people,” Bane said Thursday. “They can’t really adequately represent 1 million people and . . . there’s no way they can get any competition when they have to run for reelection.”

Not Thinking of Robbins

Bane said he did not introduce the measure with Robbins’ ambitions in mind.

“I didn’t talk to Alan Robbins about that,” he said. “I don’t care what Alan Robbins is doing. I mean, that’s his business.”

In a separate interview, Robbins said Bane had not discussed the constitutional amendment with him before introducing it Jan. 26. The first time Bane referred to it was during a chance meeting on an airplane about 10 days ago, the senator said.

“He mentioned it briefly and said I should like it,” Robbins recalled. “My presumption was that his reference was that it would provide for more direct Valley representation and smaller districts.”

Although he supports those goals, “I don’t know what I would do in terms of voting for it,” Robbins said. “I do not contemplate lobbying for it. I’m not sure exactly how it would work.”

Difficult Path Expected

The proposal, which was sent to the Assembly Local Government Committee, faces numerous hurdles. As a constitutional amendment, it requires a two-thirds vote of both the Assembly and the Senate. It would then be put on the ballot for a statewide vote.

Moreover, it is uncertain whether a state constitutional amendment could, in effect, amend a county’s governing charter, said Victor Potter, deputy director for legislative affairs for the County Supervisors Assn. of California.

The most serious obstacle will probably be the Los Angeles County supervisors. Board Chairman Deane Dana voiced objection to Bane’s methods, as well as to the bill’s goal.

“The people in Los Angeles County should make this decision and not some voter in Eureka or Sacramento,” he said. “When the voters here see we have an unmanageable situation that isn’t working, that’s their prerogative to make that decision.”

Even Supervisor Edmund D. Edelman, a Democrat who has long advocated expansion of the board as well as creation of an elected county executive position, said Thursday: “It would probably be better to submit it to a vote of the people of Los Angeles County directly than go this route.”

Voters have resoundingly defeated past ballot proposals to expand the board to seven members. Dana and fellow Republican supervisors Mike Antonovich and Peter F. Schabarum have resisted more recent overtures to add new districts.

“Increasing the size of government works against the interests of working people,” Antonovich said Thursday. “Spending more dollars for government employees at the expense of fire, police and social services is wrong and would be rejected by the voters.”

He added: “I don’t foresee the legislation going anywhere.”

Help From Field Deputies

Dana rejected Bane’s contention that supervisors cannot effectively represent more than 1 million constituents. He said supervisors’ field deputies across the districts work closely with the cities, which provide basic municipal services.

Furthermore, he maintained, a nine-member board would be so unmanageable that it would “almost destroy government in Los Angeles County.”

Bane’s bill represents a second attack on the supervisorial districts. The Justice Department has maintained that the boundaries violate the federal Voting Rights Act by diluting the electoral strength of the county’s growing Latino population. Its lawsuit is tentatively scheduled to go to trial Aug. 8.

Robbins--hoping that the supervisors may eventually be forced to create both a Latino-dominated district in central Los Angeles and a new Valley district--will begin raising money for a would-be supervisorial district at his annual birthday fund-raiser March 9.

Bane and Robbins, who share many Valley constituents and similar political styles, have long been close. Robbins recalled Thursday that he passed out leaflets as a 15-year-old in Bane’s first Assembly campaign in 1958. Bane later advised Robbins to become a successful businessman before seeking political office--something Robbins did as an attorney and real-estate developer.

‘Work Closely Together’

“Tom is a good friend of mine and in many ways has been a mentor,” Robbins said. “We work very closely together on district matters.”

The two veteran lawmakers also have a shared economic interest, which Robbins said he initiated.

In 1972, Bane joined Robbins as an investor in limited partnership units in Club California of Westwood, which owns an apartment house. Bane, in his annual economic interests report filed with the state, lists the value of his investment as more than $100,000.

In 1979, Robbins provided Bane with an unsecured personal loan at an interest rate of 10% “to cover assessments on partnership units,” Bane reported. Robbins said the loan, between $12,000 and $15,000, was for taxes on the Club California investment. Bane reported in 1984 that he had repaid the loan.

“At that point in my life, he had advised me to go out and make money, and I was in the process of doing that,” Robbins said, adding that he had introduced Bane “to what I felt was a good investment.”

Times staff writer Mark Gladstone, in Sacramento, contributed to this story.