This Is No Time to Be Refighting the Battles of Charter Reform

The new Los Angeles City Charter goes into effect July 1 and crucial decisions must be made concerning many ordinances necessary to implement it. After a series of relatively noncontroversial implementation actions, Mayor Richard Riordan and the City Council have been at loggerheads over some provisions. These recent developments have raised concern that the mayor and the council each will try to gain back some of what they perceived they lost in the new charter.

It should not be surprising that the mayor and the City Council would seek to impose different interpretations of the charter. After agreeing to put it on the ballot, a majority of the council opposed it on the grounds that it gives too much power to the mayor and offers a greater risk for abuse of his discretion. While Riordan endorsed the new charter, he did so reluctantly because it did not give the mayor enough power.

In truth, the new charter was never the mayor’s or the council’s document. It was drafted independently by two charter commissions after weighing the arguments of the mayor, the council and many others. Many powers Riordan sought for the executive branch of city government were rejected by the two commissions. At the same time, there is significantly more authority vested in the mayor’s office than most members of the City Council want.

Under the current charter, there is a city administrative officer (CAO) who, most importantly, provides independent information and analysis to both the mayor and the council. Mayor Riordan sought to have this position abolished and replaced by an equivalent position in the mayor’s office answerable only to the mayor. While we decided that all other general managers with line authority should report to the mayor, the charter reform commissions rejected the mayor’s proposal regarding the CAO and expressly decided to continue to have this office report to both the mayor and the council. There can be differences in policy, but it is crucial that policy decisions rest on independently garnered facts.

Recently, it has been reported that the mayor has directed the current CAO, who was appointed by the mayor five months ago, not to share information and analysis with the City Council until the information has been reviewed and approved by the mayor. If the CAO were to follow this directive, he would be violating his duty under both the current and the new charters. The Times has reported that the mayor has threatened to fire the CAO over this issue. It appears that the mayor is attempting to place the CAO under his sole control, even though the charter reform process expressly rejected this approach.

On other issues, it is the council that appears to be attempting to revisit the charter changes. For example, a proposed ordinance now pending before the City Council would undermine the new charter’s provision that it is the mayor’s responsibility to represent the city in intergovernmental relations. Under the current charter, the City Council, through its legislative analyst, represents the city in its relationship with state and federal governments. The new charter shifts this responsibility to the mayor. However, the council staff has recommended that before the mayor speaks for the city, he must receive the approval of the council president. Not only is this impractical, but it undermines the mayor’s express power under the new charter. Consistent with the council’s oversight role, the better approach is to require the mayor to report on official communications in which he has taken a position on behalf of the city. If he has abused his authority, the council can clarify or narrow the city policy.

It also now appears that some council staff want to declare the council the city’s “governing body.” This was expressly rejected in the compromise reached by the two commissions and in the charter as adopted.

At root here are deep, well-intentioned philosophical differences among the parties in defining the structure of city government. There also are certain areas where the charter has left it to the City Council and mayor to make further decisions together. But it is important that these crucial months before implementation not be used to replay the disagreements that were resolved during the charter reform process. The promise of charter reform depends on this.