L.A. Charter Reform Panels: A Formidable Job Begins

Not too many months ago, the effort to reform the Los Angeles City Charter appeared to be an exercise in futility. The 72-year-old charter, which sets forth the rules and structure by which the city is governed, is undeniably unwieldy and outdated. But several powerful interest groups, including factions on the City Council, support the status quo out of fear they might lose power and influence under a new charter.

Moreover, the subject of charter reform is a yawner to most voters, who are more readily drawn to tales of municipal corruption or bureaucratic bungling. That disinterest, combined with the historical reluctance of local voters to support big structural changes, led to defeat of the last serious effort to reform the charter, in 1971.

Since then, voters have approved relatively limited, piecemeal changes--for example, changing rules for police and fire pensions, requiring outside reviews of the harbor department, or, larger in scope, limiting the Civil Service protections of some department heads. These individual charter changes have undeniably improved city operations, but they have also added to the charter’s bulk and complexity.

Given this history, when the issue of charter reform became another stage last fall on which the council and Mayor Richard Riordan could display their mutual animosity, few City Hall observers thought serious reform had a chance. It still may not. But with the runoff election last week for the seats on the elected reform commission and the determination displayed to date by the City Council’s appointed commission, we appear headed for some interesting times.

Two commissions working simultaneously is not the ideal path toward charter reform. Voters, who must ultimately approve all charter changes, may be confused and turned off by the duplication of effort that inevitably will result from two panels, each anxious to demonstrate its creativity and independence.

But two commissions are what we have: one authorized by the voters last April as part of a Riordan-financed effort to streamline city government and the other appointed by the City Council to blunt Riordan’s initiative.

The surprise is that neither panel might serve its intended master. The 21-member council commission, headed by respected lawyer George Keifer, is already at work, having defined the scope of charter reform well beyond the point where many council members will feel comfortable. And what of the so-called Riordan panel? Only a handful of the candidates that the mayor alone endorsed were elected to the 15-member panel. Most of the new commissioners share little beyond a sense that the current charter works poorly and that neighborhoods and residents need a stronger voice at City Hall. That’s a good start.

But big obstacles remain for this group: The council is funding the work of its appointed commission; who will underwrite the costs of the elected panel? Will this panel of mostly strangers jell, defining and pursuing a work plan? Can the two groups work together on creating a new charter, eliminating some duplicative efforts? Will Riordan continue to support charter reform even though he appears to have lost control of the panel he brought into being?

And most important, will voters, who overwhelmingly authorized the elected panel, care enough to stay tuned through the last act--the recommendations? Only with sustained voter interest and support will the whole effort succeed.