With the clock winding down to the June 8 showdown vote on charter reform, proponents are plainly worried about the defection of City Council President John Ferraro from their ranks.
They’re right to worry. Ferraro has huge clout with business, union leaders, the police protective league and assorted City Hall lobbyists. He could easily jawbone them into bringing their legion of troops into the anti-charter-reform camp. This, along with the fact that most voters have only the haziest notion about charter reform, and the expected usual low election turnout, could deal a mortal blow to charter reform’s already shaky prospects.
The Ferraro flip-flop also raises the question of why so many City Council members have scurried away from charter reform like the plague. Their biggest public complaint is that it would give Mayor Richard Riordan too much power by allowing him more leeway to appoint and get rid of department heads. They say this will open the city to old-style Chicago or New York political bossism, in which department appointees are made and dumped at the whims of the mayor.
In most cities, however, mayors have long had the right to appoint whomever they wanted to head commissions and departments, subject to approval by the council. That wouldn’t change under charter reform.
The other much-stated complaint is that charter reform would expand the council and make it unwieldy. But Chicago, New York and indeed most major cities have proportionately far larger city councils than L.A. and have managed to avoid political gridlock.
But these proposals are not what strike the most fear in many council members. Neighborhood councils do. They conjure up nightmares about having to share power and decision-making with district residents. From the moment that neighborhood councils were mentioned as a key measure in charter reform, council members have done everything in their power to squelch any talk about them.
This is not just political caution, it’s political fallacy. Under charter reform, neighborhood councils are purely advisory. Who sits on them and what their duties would be are pretty much left to the council member who appoints them. The City Council members would still retain their power to make major decisions on spending, neighborhood services and land use.
If anything, there is the danger that council members could misuse neighborhood councils by overloading them with special-interest group advocates, professional activists or political cronies who would dominate decision-making and do the bidding of the City Council member.
Despite the false fears of City Council members that neighborhood councils will erode their status as the paramount political decision-makers in L.A., and the weakness of the councils under charter reform, there is still an urgent need for neighborhood councils with real clout.
Ideally, such councils would have limited power to make decisions on neighborhood services, park, and street improvements, and land use. City Council members would be mandated to actively solicit their advice on city budget issues, capital improvement projects, arts and public services.
But final approval on all major projects would stay with the mayor and City Council to insure that neighborhood councils do not sink into partisan personal and political bickering. This could paralyze government and further balkanize the city.
There is no threat of this happening with neighborhood councils created under charter reform. At best they would give residents a means to discuss issues and problems and better enable City Council members to tune in to the problems and needs of their constituents. One would think that this is hardly something a City Council member would be afraid of.
Earl Ofari Hutchinson is the author of “The Crisis in Black and White.” He can be heard on KPFK-FM 90.7, Tuesdays, from 7-8 p.m.
