Battle Lines Form Over Study Data

The next major battle in the debate over San Fernando Valley secession is shaping up to be a showdown over who controls the mass of data required to study the breakup.

To analyze the wholesale dismantling of city government proposed by Valley secessionists, the Local Agency Formation Commission, the panel overseeing the breakup process, will demand that city officials turn over voluminous lists of city assets, debts, revenues and operations.

The task is unprecedented in size and scope, involving everything from putting a price tag on landmarks like the Griffith Park Observatory to valuing the Police Department’s helicopters and the sewer pipes honeycombed under city streets. The study is crucial to the fate of secession because it must arrive at certain findings before a vote on the issue can take place.

It is also politically explosive, possibly shedding new light on long-standing controversies such as whether Valley residents receive their equitable share of government services--not to mention the likely consequences of deconstructing the city.

So perhaps it should not be surprising that the City Council and Mayor Richard Riordan both want to be in charge. Or that Valley secessionists fear that whoever wins the struggle--both Riordan and most council members loudly oppose secession--could use the gate-keeping powers to scuttle secession.

“We are concerned about any attempt of the city to have a clearinghouse, whether it’s at the mayor’s level or somewhere else, because a clearinghouse implies that you are reviewing and reshaping the information, not just releasing it,” said Jeff Brain of Valley VOTE, the main group advocating secession.

“We recognize that there may be those in the city that will try to stall this process,” Brain said. “But we’re hopeful that [city officials] will cooperate. If they try to provide data that is not usable by LAFCO, that will come to light, and it will backfire on them. If the city tries to stop this process from moving forward, it will be a big mistake on their part.”

*

Riordan last month issued an executive order that placed his office and top city bureaucrats in control of collecting, releasing, and if necessary, amending, all secession information requested by the Local Agency Formation Commission. The mayor’s office, which has promised secessionists that it will not impede the flow of information, describes the plan as an attempt to ensure it is provided in a smooth, consistent manner.

Councilwoman Cindy Miscikowski countered last week with a proposal to make a council committee the official clearinghouse of secession data. Miscikowski’s plan would allow the mayor, or a mayor’s representative, to participate in the committee as a nonvoting member, but would clearly place the council in the driver’s seat.

“I can’t imagine anything worse than the mayor sending a report to LAFCO, and the council learning about it through the newspapers,” Miscikowski said, explaining her rationale. “I think the parallel with the charter reform process is very good. Everyone should have an opportunity to participate.”

Though Miscikowski stressed her plan was an attempt to build on Riordan’s directive, not trump it, her motion immediately drew criticism from the mayor’s office, which argued that such a committee would only confuse matters.

“Is it appropriate for the City Council to have a role? Sure,” said Kelly Martin, Riordan’s chief of staff. “Do I realistically think the council is going to get into the nitty-gritty on this? No. The reality is that most of this work will be done by city staff.”

For its part, the Local Agency Formation Commission is hoping to avoid being caught in the middle of this latest chapter in the ongoing political squabble between the City Council and Riordan by reaching out to both. The commission only wants someone from the city to be a point person so it does not have to deal individually with all 37 city departments, said Larry Calemine, commission executive director.

Although state law requires the city to provide all information requested by the commission to study secession, statutes are vague on many important details, making city cooperation crucial. For example, the law does not say when the city has to turn over the information in its computer databases and files, or in what format. Both issues concern commission officials, who want to avoid legal disputes with the city.

“When we request the data, the request will be made formally to both the mayor and the president of the City Council,” Calemine said. “It has always been our desire to have one person in charge of this to ensure efficiency. It has never been our intent to go to every city department to get information. That would be wholly inefficient.”

But Valley VOTE members want the Local Agency Formation Commission to be able to go to every city department if necessary. They fear that Riordan and city bureaucrats may try to spin the data to kill secession. They are especially concerned that Riordan’s directive would place Chief Legislative Analyst Ron Deaton in charge of collecting and releasing the information. Secessionists consider Deaton, a powerful behind-the-scenes player at City Hall, to be one of their most formidable foes.

*

Deaton did not return requests for comment last week. He has emphasized in the past that he is concerned over the costs and time-consuming nature of the task of preparing so much information, but has also stressed he intends to make it available quickly and fairly.

Due to their concerns over Deaton, breakup supporters prefer the Miscikowski plan to Riordan and bureaucrats controlling the data.

At the same time, however, secessionists are equally afraid that a council committee--which they actively lobbied for--could turn into a forum on the issue of secession itself, and be used as a weapon to thwart their campaign. Valley VOTE collected signatures from one-fourth of the Valley’s registered voters to force the study of secession--a required step before a public vote on the issue. Secession would require a majority vote of the Valley, and the city as a whole.

The open-endedness of the Miscikowski motion concerns Councilman Mike Feuer. He said he supports a method to deliver the information to the commission that would include the public, possibly through the council. But he is not sure the council needs another committee because he feels it would further cloud the already muddled chain of command and accountability at City Hall.

“From my perspective, the important thing is not to have the council involved, but to have a full public airing of the information,” Feuer said. “Frankly, involving the council in disseminating information does not really advance the ball much.”