It’s Everyone’s City

Several groups and individuals with strong feelings about the shape of Los Angeles city government have issued not-so-veiled ultimatums: If their pet idea is not included in charter reform plans, or if a proposal they especially dislike is, the reforms will be dead on arrival.

Let’s be clear about why such demands are out there. Some, like employee union leaders, Councilwoman Jackie Goldberg and some senior appointed city officials, have made it clear that they don’t think the 700-page charter needs much overhaul, in spite of the fact that it’s amended at virtually every election in order to add or delete something. Ultimately they would like to either kill or minimize reform because they think the status quo works fairly well. Others, including some building trade union leaders and business groups, believe that charter reform is necessary, but they feel strongly that certain charter proposals, such as elected neighborhood councils, would bring decision-making in the city to a virtual standstill. Ultimately they--along with this editorial page--want a new charter that sets forth basic principles and clear lines of authority and accountability without too much detail and grants elected officials a measure of flexibility.

But some people have sought to cast the charter reform debate too narrowly. Those who believe charter reform should occur must find common ground with all of the many local residents who’ve yet to see the connection between the tedious task of streamlining the city’s governing document and a more responsive city government.

The 1925 Los Angeles City Charter has been amended so often that it has ballooned to 700 pages, a maze of duplicative, confusing and overly specific rules straitjacketing every aspect of government.

Few residents have actually seen the Los Angeles charter, but we venture that most have experienced the frustration its bulk and detail have wrought. Quick: Whom do you call to request repair of a pothole in your street? How and to whom do you voice your opinion when a new mini-mall is proposed down the street?

Public frustration with the lack of accessibility and responsiveness in city government led Los Angeles voters last year to pass Proposition 8, creating the elected commission. The City Council had earlier appointed a separate reform commission; both groups are now working toward a single set of proposals. But the absence of broad-based public interest in the nitty-gritty of reform has skewed this endeavor from the start. That’s because charter reform advocates have yet to get their message widely heard: Charter reform done right can help make Los Angeles an easier place in which to live and do business.

What’s happening instead is that meetings of the two commissions draw the same attendees, each usually armed with a narrow agenda. These folks are present at nearly every commission meeting. Sometimes they are the only ones in the room other than the commissioners and their staff. Their presence, however, and strong feelings about particular changes, could kill real improvement at City Hall by obscuring the important consensus on reform that already exists.

There is much that the two commissions have agreed on that would vastly improve the operation of city government. For example, both panels propose to improve voter representation by creating smaller City Council districts--although they still differ on the best size for the new council. They would modernize the city’s antiquated financial management process, would streamline the crazy-quilt system by which city departments now report not only to their managing boards or commissions but to the mayor and council as well, and would give the mayor broader authority to hire and fire department heads and to reorganize departments.

Beginning next month, in a series of open houses throughout the city, the public will get a chance to study these proposals and share its views with the commissioners. Those comments will be incorporated into a final set of proposals, expected by the end of the year. It’s a disservice and a misrepresentation for charter reform to be cast as a collection of narrow causes. Charter reform is important because it is residents and small business owners who are the big losers under the current system--not big business, not unions and certainly not city officials who have a huge stake in holding onto the keys that unlock the byzantine city bureaucracy.

Los Angeles’ current bloated, convoluted charter encourages and sometimes codifies a distant and inaccessible government. That’s why homeowners, business groups and others are rightly demanding change. There’s a lot of agreement and common ground. An emphasis on that common ground, rather than the differences, is the foundation of successful charter reform.