Safe Prediction for ‘97: City Hall Reform Fight Will Heat Up

If 1996 was the year that a San Fernando Valley secession threat gave birth to a government reform movement, 1997 will be the year that the nascent political campaign undergoes a baptism by fire.

Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan and the City Council support competing reform plans. And neither side has been shy about attacking the other.

But in 1997, the feud enters the public arena as Riordan’s proposal for an elected reform panel goes on the ballot--at the same time the mayor and a majority of the council fight for reelection.

Expect a political slugfest.

“People who love politics are going to love 1997,” said Rick Taylor, a political consultant who has been working on the Riordan reform campaign. “It’s going to be a very highly politically charged year.”

Only time will tell whether true government reform will win out in the end.

“I think this drama has a long way to go,” said Raphael J. Sonenshein, a political scientist at Cal State Fullerton who has written often about Los Angeles politics.

But Sonenshein warns that if the power struggle continues between Riordan and the council, voters may reject all proposals as nothing more than the same old politics with a new label.

“If two years from now there is still yelling and screaming, voters may throw their hands up and say who needs it,” he said.

The conflict began last spring when a bill by then-Assemblywoman Paula Boland (R-Granada Hills) sparked threats of a secession and complaints that City Hall is out of touch with Valley residents.

In response, Riordan teamed up with Studio City attorney David Fleming to launch a petition drive, asking voters to create a citizens panel to rewrite the 71-year-old charter that acts as the city’s constitution. Riordan put at least $400,000 of his own money into the drive.

Reform advocates complain that the charter is out of date and disperses City Hall authority so much that no one can be held accountable. They say the charter can be rewritten to streamline government or to create neighborhood councils with the power to decide local planning and budget issues.

Riordan’s initiative qualified for the ballot last month, but he had to sue to get it on the April ballot. Last week, a federal judge also ruled that members of the reform panel should be elected by district, instead of at large.

The council, which had already battled Riordan over budget issues and police hiring, responded by appointing a charter reform panel of its own. The city attorney and city controller also appointed members of the panel, which has already met twice.

The key difference between the two panels is that Riordan’s elected committee would have the power to put charter reform measures directly on the ballot, while the council retained the right to rewrite or veto reforms proposed by the panel it appointed.

The debate has centered mostly on one question: Who speaks for the people?

Riordan and his supporters argue that his panel represents true democracy at work because all panel members are elected.

But council members contend that they are the people’s representatives in City Hall and that therefore they should have final say over what reform measures appear on the ballot.

Several council members have also charged that Riordan’s initiative is a self-funded power grab. They say Riordan plans to campaign for a slate of panel members who they fear will advocate rewriting the charter to increase the mayor’s authority.

“It leaves it open to the sale of government to the highest bidder,” said Councilwoman Jackie Goldberg, who is seeking reelection next year.

*

Riordan has often said he would like the charter to increase the mayor’s authority, but he has repeatedly said that he would not benefit from such a change because the reform measure would probably not be adopted until the end of his second term.

“He is doing this for the good of the city of Los Angeles, not for himself,” said Fleming.

Both sides are already gearing up for an all-out battle.

Taylor said Riordan plans to launch a “full-blown campaign.” With a personal fortune estimated at more than $100 million, Riordan has the resources to pull out all the stops.

Meanwhile, several council members--including Goldberg and Nate Holden and Mike Hernandez--have already promised to campaign against Riordan’s measure. Former Mayor Tom Bradley, former Congressman Edward R. Roybal and the union that represents the Police Department’s rank-and-file members have joined the council in opposing the mayor’s measure.

State Sen. Tom Hayden (D-Los Angeles), who is expected to challenge Riordan for mayor, is also jumping into the fray by promising to endorse a slate of “neighborhood-based” candidates for the elected reform panel.

But political analysts and others say government reform does not flourish well in such a highly charged atmosphere.

Former County Supervisor Edmund Edelman, who led two unsuccessful charter reform efforts in 1970 and 1971, said the political squabbles can only confuse voters and turn them off to the entire effort. “Obviously, it’s not a good omen for successful charter reform,” he said.

The 1970 and 1971 reform efforts failed, in part, because of Department of Water and Power employees who campaigned against a new charter because it would give the council more authority over budget and salary issues at the DWP.

Nonetheless, Edelman holds out hope that eventually Riordan’s elected panel and the council’s appointed panel can join forces and jointly propose a package of reforms.

Sonenshein, however, warns that the battle may have unpredictable results. He said Riordan’s reform panel could make recommendations that Riordan may not support, such as reducing the mayor’s authority and creating powerful neighborhood panels. The council’s appointed panel, on the other hand, could recommend that the council’s power be diminished and the mayor’s authority increased, he added.

“These things have a tendency to boomerang on you,” he said.