Monday, 4/7/97
Charter reform goes to polls
Voters to decide if 72-year-old city document needs revision
By John Digrado and
Suzanne Karpilovsky
Daily Bruin Staff
Changing the city’s 72 year old charter is a veritable spider’s
web of possibility, conflict and ensnaring politics.
Yet on Tuesday, in an off-election year where much of the
public’s attention has been focused on the race for mayor, voters
will decide whether to pass Proposition 8 and charge 15 individuals
with the task of retooling the charter.
The Los Angeles city charter essentially serves as the city’s
constitution. It limits politicians’ authority and dictates what
the municipal government can and cannot provide for its
citizens.
Included are general statements governing civic services from
the LAPD to the Los Angeles Unified School District.
Any changes to the charter could result in a drastic change in
the citizens’ relationship with their civic government.
In this election, Angelenos will vote on the direction L.A. will
take into the 21st century by determining the fate of a document
written largely at the turn of the century when Los Angeles was
nothing more than a bustling young city.
Today, however, citizens must come to terms with the price of
that progress – bureaucracy, diffused power and general
estrangement from their city government.
"The 1925 charter was written when Los Angeles was the most
white, Anglo-Saxon Protestant city in the nation," said Xandra
Kayden, an adjunct professor in the School of Public Policy. "Now,
it’s the most ethnically diverse."
"Back in 1925, the city was run by a civic elite who were
confident that they spoke for the whole population," Kayden said.
"Today, that’s not the case."
Not many people would argue that the document, revised over the
years by a patchwork of over 400 separate amendments, is in need of
a major overhaul. But regardless of the potential benefits, the
issue is still wrought with political controversy over who should
control the process.
Students voting in the election also see the possibilities and
pitfalls of such a committee, noting that charter reform – which
has little to no effect on how the university is governed or
operates – is still an important concern to all Angelenos.
"I think (the charter) should be evaluated," said sixth-year
classics student Mark Kevany. "Times are changing too quickly now
for this not to happen."
The proposition itself creates the commission, but does not
automatically appoint commission members. Voters will cast their
ballots for candidates running in their city district for the
commission regardless of whether the proposition passes.
If it does, the popularly elected commission will draft a
charter for final approval by the voters. If it doesn’t, an
existing ad hoc commission for charter reform will retain sole
control over the process.
But the racial makeup of those who control the charter’s reform
is what alarms the measure’s detractors most. Opponents of Prop. 8
say the ad hoc commission is representative of the city’s
geographic and ethnic diversity, and should maintain their course
toward revising the current charter.
The proposition, if passed, would create a new committee to
propose a new charter altogether instead of the revisions which the
ad hoc committee would make.
Supporters say that the city needs a careful and clear direction
in how those changes should be made by a committee elected by the
citizens of the city. However, the measures’ opponents claim that
the proposition is a "risky venture" that would put the fate of the
city’s charter in the hands of 15 "strangers."
In the city’s 5th District, which includes UCLA, seven
candidates are running for the district’s sole commission seat. And
while those candidates may not represent the ethnic makeup of the
district, each believes they have something to offer the possible
commission.
"The city needs major surgery," said Matt Epstein, a businessman
from the 5th District and commission candidate. "That’s what the
charter reform is all about. For example, the budget was $1 billion
20 years ago, and now it’s $4 billion. I don’t see four times as
many police on the street," he said.
Epstein, who is endorsed by a variety of community members and
Mayor Richard Riordan, noted that the city has many different
communities, each with differing needs and expectations of their
city government.
Of those needs, other candidates argue that many citizens in the
district crave a more direct, closer relationship with the
governing body. "On average (in the US as a whole), a councilman
represents 20,000 to 40,000 people," said Jeff Brain, a businessman
running for the seat.
Currently, he argued, each council district consists of about
250,000 citizens to each council member – a number far too large
when compared to the national average. "St. Louis has 17 distinct
councils … Los Angeles’ districts are too large" and should be
reconsidered in revision of the charter, he added.
Brain noted that he is in favor of a depoliticized system of
city government which hinders the day to day management of the city
and prevents the city’s civic workers from doing their jobs
effectively and free of "political meddling." "I think charter
reform is our last hope," he said.
Yet some students disagree with the candidates’ notion of
increasing the number of city council members and are leery of
increasing the size of the city’s government, however well
intended.
"I don’t think we need any more forms of government – we have
enough now," said Shahriar Farzad, a fourth-year biochemistry
student.
"The only way you’re going to get change is people interacting
with each other. In L.A., people don’t respect each other that
much."
In the spirit of creating better community communication is the
creation of elected community councils, said Deputy County
Supervisor and commission candidate Mike Bohlke.
"While the council and the mayor must remain the principals in
the political representation process, such councils are needed to
assist their respective city council members in forming a truly
‘bottom-up’ planning process," he said.
"The existing diffusion of authority and the lack of separation
between executive and legislative functions is the fundamental
weakness of the present city charter. City government must be made
adaptable if it’s going to work. It is critical that the powers on
both sides be balanced," he added.
Bohlke also said that while the existing ad hoc commission may
succeed in its efforts to amend the current hodgepodge of
amendments that the charter is comprised of, "I don’t believe the
charter reform process should be done by piece-meal amendment."
While opponents of the proposition favor the amendments and
changes that would be made by the ad hoc committee because they
believe it is the most "democratic" way to revise the charter,
candidate Andrew Tilles favors a revision process by a committee of
15 elected individuals performed outside of closed chambers.
"Ultimately the city charter is the constitution of Los
Angeles," Tilles said. "In order to draft the best possible
charter, you should have everything done in the open."
But while many of his fellow candidates believe in scrapping the
old charter altogether in favor of a new document, Tilles does not
believe the existing document needs to be completely overhauled.
The primary problem with the current charter, he said, is
ineffective representation of individual voters and communities
before city government.
Like his fellow candidates, Tilles also believes that a revised
system of representation by the city council would solve many of
the city’s current ills.
And while accountability may be of major concern to many,
candidate Horace Heidt believes that all public agencies, not just
the city council, should be held accountable to one another.
"The city politicians must be more accountable to the citizens
of Los Angeles," the television producer said, noting that he would
be in favor of making the city accountable for where the public’s
money is being spent.
"In order for the city to have enough money to restore our
rundown communities, the city must cut down on the cost of doing
business by becoming more efficient and competitive," Heidt
said.
But fractionalization among the many city institutions is of
major concern to Howard Raphael, a businessman in the 5th District
running for the seat.
"My city has a festering problem – no unified direction,
purpose, or goal and no accountability – individual or collective,"
he said. "We are one complex and diversified city, and we require
an accountable, responsive and pro-active government of minimum
complexity with a unified purpose, direction and set of goals."
Other candidates include Erwin Chermerinsky, a USC law professor
who resides in the Fairfax district and is endorsed by the Los
Angeles Democratic Party, among others.
But regardless of campaign promises, the real issue is money,
Kayden said. "The city takes millions of dollars and spends it on
pensions. Whatever we take in property tax is exactly what we spend
in pensions," she said.
"The reason things are more expensive is that we have less
resources, a more limited capacity to raise money and a crumbling
infrastructure," Kayden said. "What we lack are mechanisms to reach
consensus about how to use the resources we have. Charter reform
could help us with that."Changes to the charter could result in a
drastic change in the citizens’ relationship with their civic
government.