A Classic Los Angeles Power Struggle

In all the hoopla over Mayor Richard Riordan’s effort to have his proposal for an elected city charter commission put to the voters, public misonceptions have arisen about the role of the charter reform study group created last fall by the City Council.

It is not surprising that the competing proposals for addressing charter reform reflect a classic power struggle between the mayor and the City Council. The mayor and his supporters argue that his approach is preferable because it allows the electorate to select who will be empowered in the reform effort as well as having the voters directly consider any recommendations for change.

Those opposed to the mayor’s proposal, most of whom support the idea of an advisory commission chosen by the city’s elected officials, argue that the council is already democratically elected.

As the political process runs its course, it is vital that everyone understand the competing positions. No matter where one stands on the issue of what is the best process for achieving desirable charter reform, all must be of a single mind that the overriding objective of any reform effort is to foster a more responsive and efficient government for the city.

The Commission on Charter Reform was created by the City Council and is composed of appointees of every elected city official other than the mayor, who has declined to exercise his appointment prerogative. Its agenda is only to generate proposals that seek the best possible government. The commission has already met as a body on three occasions.

Subcommittees of the commission have met several times. The richness of the debate that has already been evidenced at these gatherings speaks eloquently to the independence, diversity and qualifications of the 21 individuals who have agreed to confront the daunting task of charter reform.

The mission statement adopted by the commission at its Jan. 8 meeting says that the task at hand is “to undertake a comprehensive review of the . . . charter, to evaluate what works well and what does not, and to address any impediments to the best possible government.” The statement adds that “nothing is exempt from examination nor immune from reform.”

The commission, though mindful of the daunting nature of its task, is confident that it has the independence and collective expertise to achieve its mission. We hope that the electorate will keep this in mind as it sifts through the escalating political rhetoric surrounding the mayor’s effort to establish an alternative commission.