PERSPECTIVES ON CHARTER AMENDMENT 2 : No: The System Works as It Should : Our city government performs better than most in America, with managers hired on merit and fired only for cause.

Although some voices defend Charter Amendment 2 on next Tuesday’s Los Angeles city ballot, claiming that it would provide valuable reform in Civil Service, the amendment would really provide only questionable new political power. The change in the City Charter would remove the general managers of the city from the Civil Service and would allow the mayor and City Council to appoint and remove most of the top managers.

It would be a major mistake to implement this measure. It would give new authority to politicians and allow the hiring and firing of general managers so that political pawns could be put into place. The controls on hiring and firing could easily result in a manager indebted to a politician for his or her job; the manager could feel it necessary to kowtow to “the one who brought him to the dance”--or else. Its passage would be a mistake, and voters have seen it that way five times in the past.

While I’m not saying that Civil Service is a cure-all for corruption, it is better than the solution offered by Charter Amendment 2. Remember what Winston Churchill said about democracy: “(It) is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

Our city government works better now than most in America. General managers are required to be hired on merit and fired only for cause, after public charges are filed and public hearings held. That’s the way it should be. That’s power being properly used by the mayor, the City Council and the people.

Our large city departments have capable, bright managers who know how to run them without back-seat political overseers telling them how and where to go. If these managers do poorly, if they fail the people of Los Angeles in carrying out their duties, if they go their own way without regard to the wishes of the people, we have remedies currently in place that will result in dismissal.

Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been raised to conduct a massive campaign to persuade voters of the merits of Charter Amendment 2. Many government and corporate leaders have been enlisted to push for passage; it’s a well-organized campaign.

But don’t be misled. Proposals similar to this have been placed on the ballot five times and have been soundly rejected five times by voters. Simply put, it is a bad idea. I urge voters to vote no on Charter Amendment 2 as they have done so intelligently in the past.