LOS ANGELES TIMES INTERVIEW : Nancy Daly : Working for Children’s Welfare for--and With--the Mayor

Mayor Richard Riordan is watching as a photographer snaps Nancy M. Daly’s picture. “So beautiful,” he sighs, looking at the woman who has become his almost constant companion. At 53, Daly is trim, gracious and intense. Now divorced from Warner Bros. chief Robert Daly, she and Riordan have been an item since well before she appeared arm-in-arm with the mayor at his July, 1993, inauguration.

It was activism and a strong interest in child-welfare issues that brought the Republican Riordan and the Democrat Daly together. They first met in the 1980s, when she was raising funds for MacLaren Children’s Center, L.A. County’s emergency foster home in El Monte. Daly had made this home of last resort her personal passion, and it led her to successfully push for the creation of a county Department of Children. Riordan, always a generous supporter of children’s causes, donated funds for a computer center at MacLaren and went on to help line up other contributors to children’s projects that Daly spearheaded.

Nancy MacNeil Daly grew up in a Catholic family in New Jersey. Her father was an accountant. After graduating from secretarial school, she got a job at CBS, where she met Robert Daly, then working in the mail room. She was 20 when she married him in 1961. They had a daughter, two sons, and 30 years of marriage.

Riordan’s marriage to his second wife, Jill, broke up about the same time; late in 1991, he and the newly separated Daly began dating. Now inseparable, they recently bought a vacation home together in Idaho, but maintain separate residences in Los Angeles. They deftly deflect any questions about plans for marriage.

Her relationship with the mayor led Daly to organize the restoration of the Getty House, the little-known official residence of the mayor in Hancock Park. Though Riordan has no plans to live there, the Getty House is being refurbished, primarily with private funds, to serve as a showplace and center for city functions.

Riordan also tapped his companion to head a volunteer Committee on Children, charged with revamping the city’s support programs for its 860,000 kids. Her LA4KIDS report calls for a private-public partnership that would help coordinate the city’s parks, libraries, schools and other institutions to better serve children.

During an interview at her Bel-Air home, the mayor wandered in and out, and improvised on a piano in an adjoining room, as Daly talked about helping kids, the dangers of welfare reform and her companion, Richard Riordan.

*

Question: What would your plan, LA4KIDS, do to help the children of Los Angeles?

Answer: There are a lot of programs for kids in the city right now. The Fire Department has a program, the Department of Water and Power has a program--there are a whole variety of departments with programs. But there’s no knowledge of how these programs are working, and no way of assessing if they are working or not. One thing we do know: They often duplicate their efforts, and there’s been no coordination.

They’ve also, generally, been developed more to address a specific problem than to address a community’s needs. We’d like to ask the communities that: What do you need? Is it midnight basketball? Is it after-school programs?

For instance, last summer we worked with six communities where there was a school, a park and a library. We had a meeting and brought in the principal, and people from Parks and Recreation and from the library--and they had never sat down together before. And together they organized after-school activities that took advantage of these neighborhood assets, and maximized their value.

The whole idea is to refocus on what we already have. Creating, for instance, safe corridors to schools, and having neighborhoods become aware that kids are coming and going. So if someone is home during the day, or if there is a local store, the kids become aware that’s a safe place for them to go. Making the LA4KIDS a reality means making people aware that we believe in our kids, that we are proud of them and we want to nurture them.

*

Q: On the national level, the various proposals to reform the welfare system and cut the budget will all have an effect on children. How do you think children can be protected in this process?

A: I don’t think enough thought has gone into the welfare-reform ideas in the first place. I don’t think it’s the Republican’s intention to hurt kids. But, for instance, when it comes to the issue that concerns me most about child welfare--the foster-care program--they never really thought that through. No matter what happens with transferring many of these programs to the states, you must leave the federal government’s foster-care safety net in place. Because we know from previous experience that if they cut welfare money from poor families, then more children will need foster care. And if you cut back at the foster-care system at the same time, the demand for foster care is increasing so dramatically you will destroy the system. It’s a terrifying situation, but I just don’t believe the Congress will let that happen.

If we cut back, say, on the school breakfast and lunch program, then we will have schools full of hungry children. Children who are hungry can’t learn. So we can certainly expect that children aren’t going to learn. And while I know we need to do something about teen-age pregnancy, we seem to be making these mothers the enemy, and it is their children who are going to be punished.

That’s not our country’s way, and I don’t think our nation wants to do that. But that’s what it looks like we’re going to do. I saw something on television this week about Brazil, where children literally run through the streets--homeless and abandoned. That can happen here, in this country, and very quickly.

*

Q: What’s the source of your social activism?

A: Fifteen years ago, I went to the MacLaren Children’s Center. I saw children who were not being cared for, and I just couldn’t walk away from that particular situation. And as I spent more time, I realized it wasn’t just MacLaren--it was the foster-care system, and we needed to fight to create a Children’s Department for L.A. County. Then I realized it was not just local, and I began to work on a statewide, then on a national level. It was never a plan. It just evolved as I learned more and more.

But I don’t really know why. Obviously, my parents were involved in their community, they believed in helping others. But it was never thought of as a big deal. It was just something they did.

*

Q: There is a perception that people who have prospered in Los Angeles don’t have the same commitment to charity and good deeds as do their peers on the East Coast. Is that, in fact, true--are people here less involved and less charitable?

A: Whenever I have needed help, I have always gotten it. I have found this community to be generous. Particularly for children’s causes. Whether it was the movie studios, the Downtown community--people have always responded. I think the myth, though, is that the East Coast knows better how to deal with all of these major social issues. But I want to tell you that the people whom I work with here in behalf of children are the most intelligent and the most progressive, and we are way ahead of the East Coast in what we are doing here. But somehow we have a bad rap here.

I remember being at a meeting in New York explaining what we were doing in Los Angeles for children, and someone asked me, “Why aren’t you writing about what you’re doing?” And I said we were too busy doing. Maybe we should spend more time talking about what we are doing, so that people become more aware of the positive things that are happening.

*

Q: Many of your activities have involved melding private and public funds. Is that the future of government?

A: I think it has to be. I think back to what we did at MacLaren. If we had said, “We’re not going to do this because the county, or the state, or the federal government should do it,” nothing would have changed. And by taking action on our own, and not waiting for government to do it, we sort of pulled them along. At first, they saw us as a threat. They thought what we were doing would make them look bad. But eventually they realized we wanted to help them look good, and realized they could benefit from our efforts.

*

Q: But you recall George Bush and 1,000 points of light--there was criticism that government was abandoning its responsibility to the private sector, and that charity could not pick up the slack. So how do you find the balance in a private-public endeavor?

A: I think it is a work in progress. Government, certainly, has the role of setting standards and expectations. The private sector’s responsibility is to maximize resources. I believe we must have the partnership, and I think the private sector truly wants to reach out and help. But the federal government simply cannot abandon its responsibilities, particularly to the most vulnerable in our society.

*

Q: Right now you are busy coordinating the restoration of the Getty House in Hancock Park. Can you describe its function and what you see it doing for the city?

A: It’s the city putting its best foot forward. We’ve been hit by so many difficulties over the past few years, and we’ve done such a miraculous job of recovering, and yet the perception of Los Angeles elsewhere is not the reality. The Getty House will be a place where people from around the world can be welcomed with the kind of dignity that this city warrants. It is really the symbol of our recovery.

*

Q: Do you see it as similar in function to New York’s mayoral residence, Gracie Mansion?

A: Yes. People who visit Gracie Mansion feel very privileged to go there; it’s an honor to be invited. But there are also tours; schoolchildren go there, so people feel it’s really part of them. We would like to see the same thing happen with the Getty House. We plan to have the house open by next fall, and by then we want to have a protocol established for its use. People can rent it and use it for things that benefit the city; if a future mayor decides to live there, we want to have what is needed to entertain eight people for dinner, or host a party of 500. There is a second master bedroom that could be made available for dignitaries who might like to stay in the house. We would like to figure all this out now, so that when a new mayor comes in, no one has to think about it; it’s all in place.

It’s really an effort that has never been done before in this city. We have over 50 businesses and tradespeople who have donated their goods, services and talents. We have the electricians’ union and the plumbers--so many people who have come forward and who really are excited about being involved. And it helps people who work for the city to see this excitement and know that the private sector really does want to be involved.

The reason all these people have gotten involved and excited is because we now have a mayor who has encouraged and welcomed their involvement. And not just with the Getty House, but with many projects throughout the city. I think that this is a symbol of that, but I think it reflects a much bigger picture.

*

Q: Since you are in a unique position from which to observe our mayor, have you found some special qualities about him that the public might not be aware of?

A: He is the youngest man I have ever known. His energy is amazing, and he has the capability to work very hard, concentrate on a variety of tough issues and then put it all away at the end of the day and relax. He has a zest for life and an enthusiasm that is infectious. He’s absolutely connected to the moment, wherever he is. If he’s sitting next to someone, he’s so open to hearing and learning about the person. I like to say that he’s always either learning or teaching.

He’s also very flexible. I find him to be very non-judgmental and open to new ideas and new ways of looking at things. And maybe most importantly for the people of Los Angeles, I believe he is absolutely sincere in his desire to do the very best he can to solve the problems of the city.