Mayor’s Political Reform Plan Faces Questions

Political campaign and ethics reform, says one who has made numerous attempts at it, is like squeezing a balloon: pushing on one side produces a bulge on the other.

As the San Diego City Council begins reviewing the wide-ranging political reform package that Mayor Maureen O’Connor unveiled in her recent State of the City address, the overriding question is whether the mayor’s recommendations would--to pursue the balloon analogy--smoothly reshape the surface or create bulges more unsightly than any that now exist.

“Whenever you make a stab at campaign and ethics reform, there’s always the danger that the changes will just create new problems or loopholes worse than the ones you have now,” said longtime political activist Mark Zerbe. “That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try. It just means that new rules usually produce new problems.”

O’Connor acknowledges the potential pitfalls of her reform effort--which would, among other things, move the city closer to a strong-mayor form of government by giving the mayor veto power over council actions. But she argues that her proposal, if approved by the council and ratified by voters, would result in “a far better, fairer system than we have now.”

“I realize this is a political time bomb--you can’t have an ethics and reform plan without it being controversial,” O’Connor said in an interview. “But I’d rather make these reforms and risk having some innovative person try to find creative ways to get around it--and then deal with that new problem--than just sit back and do nothing. If we stay with the system we have today, we’re in big trouble.”

Aiming for a public vote on her plan this June on a special mail ballot, O’Connor has put the sweeping proposals--which would substantially revamp, in both form and content, how local candidates campaign for office and how they function at City Hall once elected--on a fast legislative track. Some of O’Connor’s recommendations could be enacted simply through action by the council--which held one workshop on the subject last week and is scheduled to hold another Monday--though most would require voters’ approval.

Drawn largely from past proposals from the city’s Charter Review Commission and other groups, O’Connor’s plan--which includes nearly three dozen suggested structural and procedural changes--has received a generally warm initial reception both inside and outside City Hall. However, it also has encountered some skepticism, on both philosophical and legal grounds.

The mayor’s recommendations include expansion of the council from eight to 10 seats, setting a two-term limit for both the council and mayor, barring council members from voting on projects involving contributors from whom they have received more than $1,000 in the past year, confining political fund-raising to nine months before a campaign, increased disclosure of major campaign contributions, requiring voter approval for the sale of large parcels of city-owned land, and spending limits and public financing of local campaigns.

From O’Connor’s perspective, her reform package would produce cleaner, less costly campaigns, which in turn would lead to “more new blood and fresh ideas” in local government by guaranteeing turnover in the city’s top elected positions. In addition, the smaller council districts resulting from the addition of two seats would enhance citizens’ access to City Hall, while a mayoral veto will help prevent citywide interests from being overwhelmed by parochial district concerns, O’Connor contends.

In contrast, critics--most of whom favor at least portions of the mayor’s proposal--warn that the changes could increase, rather than cut, the cost of campaigns and government, partly through nightmarish paper work requirements. Others offer Machiavellian scenarios of groups or individuals trying to circumvent anticipated opposition via campaign contributions designed to disqualify certain members from voting, and complain that the altered rules would restrict basic political rights.

Even some who are sympathetic to O’Connor’s goals question whether they, like similar earlier efforts, are simply a fruitless search for a perfect set of rules in the imperfect world of politics.

“The form and structure of campaign or ethical rules can never change human nature and the basic law of politics,” said John Kern, a political consultant and former top aide to Councilwoman Judy McCarty. “As long as government takes it upon itself to influence people’s lives, people are going to try to influence government. You can change the rules. But you can’t change that basic behavior.”

Echoing a common sentiment, lawyer J. Michael McDade says he is troubled by what appears to be the “negative philosophical foundation” of parts of O’Connor’s reform plan.

Shift in Focus

“It all starts from the presumption that certain people’s participation in politics is bad, and I don’t accept that,” said McDade, a frequent City Hall lobbyist who was chief of staff to former Mayor Roger Hedgecock. “People such as contributors and consultants have valid reasons for wanting to participate, and ought to be able to do so without undue restrictions.”

O’Connor, though, counters that her proposal “would not prevent anyone from participating” in local politics, but instead would shift those efforts in directions that “make people more important to the process than greenbacks.”

“The basic flaw in our current system is that it’s money-driven rather than people-driven,” O’Connor said. “When you talk about political participation, too often that means writing out a check--and those checks have a motive behind them. There are other ways to participate--volunteering, for instance. All I’m trying to do is level the playing field for people who can’t write the big checks.”

One of the major structural changes proposed by O’Connor--and the one that, to date, has attracted the most debate--calls for the creation of a mayoral veto, which could be overridden by a two-thirds council vote.

Aware just how controversial that idea is, O’Connor coupled her call for a mayoral veto with her surprising announcement that she will not seek reelection in 1992, hoping that her non-candidacy would preclude questions about her motives.

“Since I’m not going to be the long-range beneficiary of these changes, critics won’t be able to say that I’m power hungry or just out to strengthen myself,” the mayor said.

Reviving a debate that has surfaced sporadically since former Mayor Pete Wilson unsuccessfully attempted to strengthen the mayor’s office in the 1970s, O’Connor argues that the need for a mayoral veto has been hastened by the advent of district elections in council campaigns. As the only member of the council still elected citywide, the mayor needs additional powers to better balance citywide needs against narrow district interests, she contends.

Though a narrow council majority has tentatively endorsed the veto proposal, some members are concerned that strengthening the mayor’s role would diminish the added clout that neighborhoods gained through district elections. Others question O’Connor’s preference for allowing the mayor to retain a vote on the council in addition to holding potential veto power.

That “double vote,” lawyer McDade suggests, would give the mayor “an unfair trump card” to hold over the council. If the mayor is to have a veto, he and others argue, the mayor’s office should be redesigned as a separate executive branch that oversees the council but does not have a direct hand in its affairs.

Donations Targeted

“The mayor doesn’t need two votes--you can’t have it both ways,” concurred consultant Tom Shepard. “Through the veto, the mayor could become the agenda setter for the city. If the mayor also keeps a vote on the council, it’s like having an extra time at bat.”

O’Connor, however, argues that establishment of a separate executive mayor’s office “is too big a bite of the apple for now.” Her proposal, O’Connor says, is a necessary transitional step in that direction.

“The veto would be used sparingly, so if you took the mayor off the council without making some other changes, her influence could actually be weakened,” O’Connor said. Examples of when she might have used the veto, O’Connor added, include the council’s approval of a commercial development at Belmont Park and the controversial Miramar Ranch North development.

Among the myriad provisions in O’Connor’s package, the other major change for the council would result from her attempt to establish a direct procedural link between campaign contributions and council votes--a nexus that many would argue already exists in practice. Her proposal would simply underline that political reality while seeking to regulate its impact, O’Connor argues.

Under the mayor’s plan, any council member who receives campaign donations totaling more than $1,000 from an individual or a company’s principals would be prohibited from voting on projects affecting those contributors for the next year. The ban’s purpose, O’Connor emphasizes, is to “make sure that the council’s decisions are based on the merits, not on who gave how much to whom.”

Although a similar law exists in Orange County, opponents have raised constitutional questions about the $1,000 disqualification threshold, arguing that it improperly restricts individuals’ right to financially support a candidate or officeholder of one’s choice.

“Voters elect these people to be their representatives, and when you start disqualifying them solely on the basis of campaign contributions, it raises some pretty serious due process questions,” said development lawyer Paul Peterson, a close O’Connor ally who favors a majority of the provisions in the mayor’s plan but differs with her on that key point. “Besides, I’ve never bought this argument that there’s an automatic connection between a contribution and the ability to influence a vote.”

Scenarios Outlined

In addition, critics foresee extensive--some say insurmountable--practical problems, including the possibility that a majority of the council would be unable to vote on issues involving large companies whose executives typically contribute to campaigns, often at the maximum $250-per-person level allowed under local campaign laws.

If political reformers complain that campaign contributions sometimes buy undue legislative influence, skeptics of the proposed $1,000 limit argue that it would turn conventional political behavior on its head by punishing individuals for supporting favored candidates.

The flip side of that undesired loss of a sympathetic ear on the council could see savvy activists deliberately trying to eliminate council opposition through combined $1,000-plus contributions to members whom they expect to vote against them. Campaign consultant Shepard, for example, predicts that developers might seek to “pick off” anticipated pro-environmental votes in that fashion.

That scenario, O’Connor responds, would come to pass only if council members are “stupid enough” to accept contributions in excess of the $1,000 limit from builders or others who frequently do business at City Hall.

“No doubt about it--this would cause the big contributors and candidates to think twice before writing out these checks or accepting them,” O’Connor said.

Some council members, though, are concerned that the restriction would confront them with a daunting bookkeeping task--constantly tracking the source of contributions in order to preserve their voting eligibility. Moreover, such a limit might even compel council members to be prophets, constantly forcing them to wonder whether a campaign donation accepted in January might prevent them from voting in December on an as-yet-unannounced project.

“With a company like General Dynamics, I have no idea how much its employees may have contributed to me,” Councilman Ron Roberts said. “Then the question becomes, even if you get five ($250) contributions from officers of a company with thousands of workers, should that disqualify you from voting on anything involving it?”

The top executives of numerous companies routinely donate thousands of dollars to local candidates in multiple $250 increments--a practice that many political activists have long decried as a circumvention of the city’s contribution limit and ban on corporate gifts. Such contributions, O’Connor and others argue, are within the letter--but hardly the spirit--of local election laws.

Mixed Reactions

O’Connor’s proposed spending limit for council and mayoral campaigns has drawn mixed reactions, with proponents hailing them as a means of curtailing spiraling campaign costs and opponents fearing that it would simply reinforce incumbents’ political security by limiting lesser-known challengers’ ability to outspend them. Both sides, however, are doubtful of its chances of passage, primarily because of court rulings requiring that spending limits be accompanied by public financing of campaigns--an idea that few expect to gain public support.

“Not now, not here, not ever, not anywhere,” is consultant David Lewis’ blunt analysis.

Undeterred, O’Connor, who adhered to self-imposed spending limits in her past two mayoral campaigns, said she hopes to persuade voters to underwrite campaigns with a voluntary checkoff system, perhaps on water bills.

“I’d rather see people give a dollar or two to preserve their neighborhood than to have a developer write a check to destroy it,” O’Connor said.

Several of O’Connor’s proposals would mandate behavior that, with a few notable exceptions, now routinely occurs. Her proposed two-term limit, for example, would restrict mayors and council members to eight years at City Hall--a figure that no one has surpassed since former Mayor Wilson and then-Councilman, now county Supervisor Leon Williams did so in the early 1980s.

Though some fret that the required retirement of seasoned council veterans robs voters of the chance to reward exceptional service, the consensus opinion is that a two-term limit is a welcome method of periodically infusing the council with new personalities and ideas.

“It would get us back more to the idea of the citizen-politician and away from career politicians,” lawyer McDade said.

Similarly, O’Connor’s proposal that campaign fund-raising be limited to the nine months before a race would cause minimal disruption of current political patterns, considering that few candidates begin soliciting donations earlier than that. Its impact would be largely limited to incumbents who raise funds non-stop throughout their terms--a practice that major traditional campaign donors will not be saddened to see disappear.

“We’ll all feel a little better about opening our mail, knowing that another invitation to another fund-raiser isn’t in it,” McDade joked.

The two-seat expansion of the council included in O’Connor’s package is legally superfluous, given that an identical proposal already is guaranteed a place on the June ballot by virtue of the city’s settlement last year of a voting-rights lawsuit filed by the Chicano Federation.

Widely supported, the two-seat addition would be the first voter-approved expansion of the council since 1963--a time when the city’s population was roughly half its current 1.1 million. By adding the two seats and, consequently, reducing the size of existing districts, proponents believe that minority representation will be enhanced and that council members will be better able to serve fewer constituents.

Hoping to alleviate cost considerations, O’Connor has proposed that the expansion be accomplished within the current council staff budget--a plan viewed with a notable lack of enthusiasm by council members, who would be forced to scale back their own offices to fund the new members’ staffs. Some also warn of hidden costs in the expansion, contending that additional council offices inevitably would place greater demands upon city administrators.

“I’m still not convinced that having 11 people instead of nine does anything but lengthen the process,” Councilman Roberts added.

O’Connor’s suggestion that the redrawing of council district lines be shifted from the council to an independent commission is seen by many as a well-intentioned but perhaps futile effort to depoliticize an inherently political process. Noting that the commission’s members would be nominated by the mayor and the council, many argue that the panel would simply shift the wrangling over boundaries from the council members themselves to their political surrogates.

Other proposals are designed to give voters a more direct hand in city issues ranging from the sale of 80-acre-plus parcels of city land to pay raises for the mayor and council. Under O’Connor’s plan, voters’ approval would be needed for both to occur. And, while few are content with the council’s present policy of approving its own pay based on the recommendations of a salary-setting commission, many fear that voters’ historical reluctance to boost public salaries could drive away qualified candidates who lack independent wealth.

Additional disclosure requirements and campaign ethics proposals are seen by O’Connor as means of increasing candidates’ accountability and for lessening potential conflicts of interest.

Individuals who donate more than $500 to council members within a one-year period would be included on a “major contributors” list to be attached to the council’s docket whenever subjects affecting them are considered. Elected officials and city staff also would face new restrictions in their ability to lobby at City Hall after leaving public service, including one provision that would permanently prohibit them from lobbying on any matter in which they were directly involved as a city employee.

All political consultants doing business with the city would be registered, and they, along with candidates, would have to sign any campaign literature that they produce--requirements aimed at curtailing so-called “hit pieces.” With the same goal in mind, candidates also would be required to send any large-scale campaign mailer to their opponents and the city clerk’s office prior to distribution.

Citing various court rulings, City Atty. John Witt has raised legal questions about the pre-screening of campaign brochures, a practice that he described in a recent report as “a form of prior restraint on constitutionally protected speech.” In addition, consultant Lewis notes that the proposal would “take away one of the big factors in campaigns--the element of surprise.”

But O’Connor dismisses opposition to her disclosure proposals as transparent efforts to avoid responsibility for questionable political activity.

“When hit pieces come out, consultants and candidates try to hide behind each other,” O’Connor said. “We want to know who they are and where to find them, and this would make it easier to do that.”

Occasionally criticized in the past for her failure to follow through on major policy initiatives, O’Connor pronounces herself ready to mount an aggressive citywide campaign on behalf of her reform package. As she readies for that battle, the mayor, encouraged by the majority, if cautious, support that most of her major proposals have drawn from the council, said that she anticipates an even more receptive audience outside City Hall.

“The ironic thing is that these early stages of the debate involve the people who would be most directly affected by the changes,” O’Connor said. “That’s hardly an impartial jury. When the public gets its chance to be heard, I think we’ll see just how strongly people feel that it’s time for City Hall to come into the ‘90s. If we can get this through, it will be a lasting legacy--less for me than for the city.”