L.A.’s Runaway Charter

It’s not unusual for a large city to have a commission of distinguished citizens take another look at its charter. Only in Los Angeles, though, would there be so much dispersion of political power that there would be two charter commissions, one elected and pushed by the mayor, another appointed by the City Council. Both trying--earnestly, we might add--to do the same thing. Witness a powerful symbol of what’s wrong with government in Los Angeles. And what’s wrong affects your life if you live or work here.

If the immediate task of the two reform panels is to draft a new governing document, the deeper goal of this endeavor is far more sweeping and urgent: to design a city government that works. Los Angeles, all 3.4 million people and 469 square miles, is a city with a dysfunctional government. Yes, trash is regularly collected, the Police and Fire departments respond quickly in emergencies and water reliably flows into kitchen sinks and showers. But in countless ways, big and small, this city’s convoluted government structure works against new or simple solutions to municipal problems, it discourages community involvement and it perpetuates a small, insular circle of power brokers.

In large measure, the reason city government doesn’t work is that our charter, drafted in 1925, is no longer a statement of fundamental governing principles. Seventy years of piecemeal amendments have inflated it into a monstrously unwieldy, overly prescriptive operations manual for virtually every office and public servant. Lines of authority are so blurred and overlapping that almost no one has enough power to make the decisions necessary to manage a city of this size and complexity. It’s excruciatingly difficult to hold any one person accountable for a poor decision or no decision at all.

At well over 700 pages and five pounds, the charter is longer, by more than 680 pages, than a printed copy of the U.S. Constitution. The three-ring-binder edition of the charter is heavier than the L.A. phone directory.

When the Board [of Zoning Appeals] assumes jurisdiction of a matter, the Zoning Administrator shall lose jurisdiction except that the matter may be remanded to the Zoning Administrator, or the Board may accept applicant’s request for withdrawal of such transfer of jurisdiction, in which cases the Zoning Administrator shall regain jurisdiction for the time and purpose specified by the Board.

Look no further than the zoning and permitting process for evidence that our city government works against simple, efficient solutions. Whether the project is a 2,000-square-foot restaurant or a multi-acre business park, developers, business owners, homeowners and tenants all complain of multiple boards and bodies, multiple appeals, endless time and cost and unsatisfactory decisions. Land use is just one example; convoluted processes, layers of boards and commissions and glacial decision-making characterize city contracting, finance and the delivery of city services, whether the task is repairing potholes or building a new runway at LAX. Certainly officials must operate within checks and balances, allowing meaningful public input, but they must also have the ability and the flexibility to move forward with dispatch when appropriate.

Actions of the commissions and boards shall become final at the expiration of the next five meeting days of the City Council during which the Council has convened in regular session, unless City Council acts within that time by two-thirds vote to bring such commission or board action before it for consideration and for whatever action, if any, it deems appropriate . . . .

Proposition 5 (Art III, Sec. 32.3, quoted above), which was passed by the voters in 1992, is one of the best arguments for charter reform. Mayor Tom Bradley, who opposed the measure, mistakenly signed it, putting it on the ballot. Under this provision, the council can undo or redo the actions of virtually any city board, department or commission. Proposition 5 means that every department manager has at least two bosses, the commission that oversees that department and the City Council. Most managers see themselves as having at least 20 bosses--the five-member commission appointed by the mayor and the 15 members of the council. In principle, this arrangement makes no sense. In practice, it means that general managers become messengers, ferrying requests and recommendations between commissions and the council, awaiting advice and direction from their multiple masters. The City Council has actually invoked Proposition 5 less than three dozen times. But its mere existence encumbers the operation of every department.

Proposition 5 is a compelling example of why the new charter needs to clearly define lines of authority, but far from the only one. The charter’s specificity causes agencies to sometimes work at cross-purposes. One department trims curbside trees so traffic can more easily move but may not coordinate with city arborists. Severe, inexpert cuts can result, sometimes causing healthy trees to topple or die.

Form can help dictate substance. A simpler, more straightforward, more succinct charter would not, by itself, solve the problems so apparent in Los Angeles government. But a smaller, clearer charter would go a long way toward that end. A concise document, understandable and available to ordinary residents, would also surely help to erode the cynicism and disengagement that keep many from voting in city elections or from getting involved in civic affairs.

Every person . . . retired pursuant to Sec. 508 and who, on the effective date of such retirement, was or is at least 60 years of age and had or has had at least 10 years of continuous service . . . shall receive such additional pension that, for 10 such years, his total monthly retirement allowance shall be not less than $60.00 if retired at age 60, $64.00 if retired at age 61. . . .

At least one-third of the existing charter is taken up with provisions relating to the pensions, retirement and Civil Service rules that govern city employees. Worker protections were included in the 1925 charter to insulate public servants from the corrupt political patronage that plagued other city governments. But 70 years later, these worker provisions have grown so detailed and voluminous that they weigh down the entire charter. More important, the detailed provisions micro-manage and often preclude common-sense solutions. Some of the 30,000 city employees use their rigid job descriptions to explain why they won’t answer a ringing telephone on the next desk. Civil Service protections mean they don’t have to. And since even most folks in City Hall can’t make heads or tails of the charter language, the city attorney’s office spends an inordinate amount of its time “interpreting” the charter before action can be taken.

This sort of material does not belong in a document outlining general governing principles. But, given the political clout of public employee unions, with their strong allies on the City Council and on the elected charter reform commission, it is unlikely that this material could be removed from the charter altogether. An acceptable compromise might be to collect worker protections into an appendix, organizationally separate from the rest of the charter. Another important compromise would involve further eliminating Civil Service protections for top management. Already, the general manager of a department can be hired or fired outside of Civil Service; the mayor/City Council should have that flexibility with other top levels of management as well.

Much of the rest of the mind-numbing detail in the charter, about which agency or individual is responsible for moving and molding playground sand, recording zoning variances, producing actuarial reports or painting curbs, has no place in a new charter. This material belongs in the Administrative Code, which defines the powers of City Council members and other officials, and in the Municipal Code, which spells out the city’s laws and the consequences for violating them. These codes can be changed more easily than the charter--generally by a vote of the council, instead of requiring a vote of the people.

Despite its staggering length and detail, the current charter has two holes. It does not adequately define, in a preamble or introduction, the broad mission of the city government--its goals and principles--and the rights and responsibilities of its citizens. No less important, the charter needs a code of conduct for city officials, specifying expectations for their performance in office and outlining a procedure for their removal when necessary. Such a code might have prevented confusion in 1990 when a stroke incapacitated Councilman Gilbert Lindsay for nearly four months prior to his death, leaving his constituents largely unrepresented. And it could have provided guidance to those who called on Councilman Mike Hernandez to resign following his recent arrest for drug possession.

The elected and appointed commissions are now debating the scope and specificity of the new charter, along with other reforms. Their meetings are open to the public. The elected commission will meet at 6 p.m. Monday at Angelica Lutheran Church, 1345 S. Burlington Ave., and the next meeting of the appointed commission is at 1 p.m. Wednesday at the Department of Water and Power Building, 111 N. Hope St. Get involved; this is your charter, your city government, your future.

Where to Find the Los Angeles City Charter: The Central Library and the area branches each have a copy of the charter. The call number is 352.01L881. Brackett Publishing, (213) 625-8345, sells the charter, or you can view--and download--the charter without cost on Brackett’s Web page: www.codesite.com and then click on “City Charter.”