Chilling L.A.’s Charter Reform

The tactics of some members of the Los Angeles City Council could become the best argument yet for comprehensive reform of the city’s aged charter. For them to be the center of the charter debate would be unfortunate, however, since the problems with the 72-year-old document far transcend the men and women who currently make city policy and since term limits ensure that none will be in office when--or if--any reforms take effect.

Resistance on the council toward a reform commission elected by voters last spring threatens to undermine the will of the people. That resistance is in no one’s best interest. The current focus of council pique is the elected charter panel’s request for funding. State law enables voters to create independent reform commissions and requires that their recommendations go directly before the voters for approval. Passage of Proposition 8 on last April’s ballot established the current commission. But the measure provided neither funding nor guidance as to its operations.

At one point it seemed that Mayor Richard Riordan, who initiated the reform effort, would bankroll the panel’s work, but his interest in charter reform flagged when most of the commission candidates he endorsed failed to win.

Earlier, the City Council had appointed its own charter reform commission, now at work. That panel received council approval of a $1.4-million budget. The elected panel, in contrast, has received a chilly reception. This week, the council delayed action on the elected panel’s budget request and held up $30,000 in pledged private contributions until the donors are identified. Disclosure seems reasonable, but it shouldn’t be an excuse to put the elected commission between a rock and a hard place.

The deadlock centers on the limits of the panel’s independence. The council, controversially, considers the elected panel a city agency, subject to the city’s rules about contracting, hiring and private contributions. But some charter commissioners argue that their status as elected representatives reviewing the city’s governmental structure gives them some independence from council control. There is merit in this view, and the council risks voter anger if it continues to be obstructive.