Riordan Wants It His Way

From the start, the smart money was on the Los Angeles City Council to block any overhaul of the city’s antiquated charter. The council holds the lion’s share of power, and reform is likely to diminish it. But now, even as representatives of the two reform commissions reach tentative agreement on a single compromise proposal to go before voters next June, it’s Mayor Richard Riordan who looms as the major obstacle to positive change at City Hall.

In a series of often tense meetings last month, leaders of the elected panel and the one appointed by the City Council remarkably agreed on provisions for a unified charter. The package incorporates the recommendations of one commission here, the other’s there, and otherwise splits the difference.

Overall, the compromise charter would be a big improvement over the city’s 73-year-old document. Lines of authority would be clearer, residents would know who to blame when something went wrong and the public would have more opportunity to be heard on issues that affect Los Angeles neighborhoods. In particular, future mayors would gain authority to use executive orders to manage city departments, would have more control over city budgeting and litigation and could reorganize city departments. The compromise has gained the endorsement of key union and business groups.

Give Riordan credit for getting the ball rolling two years ago by calling attention to the duplication, confusion and plain inanities in the current 700-page document and by financing the 1997 voter initiative that created the elected panel. Now, Riordan’s stubbornness threatens to do in the whole effort. He insists he will support only a charter that, in addition to all the new authority future mayors would get, grants the chief executives unilateral power to fire city department heads. The elected panel supported that power, while the appointed panel would require mayors to get City Council approval before firing. The conference committee last month adopted a sensible compromise, granting mayors the power to fire, subject to a two-thirds veto by the council. Mayors would have more of the authority Riordan and others believe they need to make the city responsive, while the council could rein in any mayor who acts abusively or recklessly.

But Riordan demands his way. He has been caustic in his criticism of the appointed panel’s draft charter, released in November, and of the new conference version. The mayor insists that only unfettered power to fire department heads is acceptable. His arrogance threatens to sink the entire reform endeavor.

If the compromise fails because either of the full panels fail to approve it, separate proposals from the elected and appointed panels will go on the ballot. Voters faced with confusing choices and more than 500 pages of fine print from both panels might well just stay home or oppose everything.

This week each panel meets to vote on the compromise recommendations. We strongly urge their approval. Riordan has been lobbying members of the elected panel ceaselessly to reject the compromise version because it checks the mayor’s power to fire department heads. Yet residents have repeatedly told pollsters that they are wary of handing future mayors a lot of unfettered power. Perhaps, as Riordan believes, his money and persuasiveness will overcome that hesitation. But if he’s wrong, the result, after two years of debate and study and millions of dollars, could be the failure of the last real chance for reform for many years to come.