Power to the People?

LA Charter Reformers Reluctantly Ponder Neighborhood Councils
by Robert Johnson

Editor's Note: The following begins a three-part series exploring the democratic ideal in L.A. Charter reform debate. Part One considers institutional voices; Part Two will look briefly at Ridley-Thomas and locally specific solutions; and Part Three will focus on opinions outside the mainstream

Across 2500 years of Western political and philosophical speculation, the concept of democratic government has waxed and waned and undergone some dramatic conceptual mutations. But it has never lost that brilliant idealistic lustre--radical intellectuals across the board continue to thirst after its conceptual beauty. And many argue that charter reform movements are a prime opportunity to edge closer to the goal of true democracy. Here in Los Angeles we have a charter reform movement that was initially spurred by a Mayor's interest in curbing democratic excesses in favor of a more corporate model. However--as this movement has unfolded into, in effect,three institutional bodies (the elected, appointed and now a newly-formed "joint" commission), plus a vocal city attorney clamoring to carve out a new paradigm for city government, and as it is continually shadowed by a lively pair of secessionist movements in the San Fernando Valley and in our Harbor Area--things have gotten a little more interesting in terms of democratic ideals and the possibility of restructuring towards the interest of the citizenry.

The unusual case of two Charter Reform commissions simultaneously attacking our city's old bulky document is the outcome of a rift between the City Council and the mayor--both attempting to further their own interests through their respective committees. However, the mayor's elected committee did not come out quite as he planned. San Pedro's Janice Hahn, the 15th District representative on the elected Committee for Charter Reform, is a prime example of this; she recently took a solitary stand on the committee in opposition to increasing the mayor's power. But neither has the City Council's appointed committee been definitively pro-Council. The issue of local democratic restructuring, which transcends the simple polarity of Downtown squabbles, frames a variety of opinions across the field of players with no clear pattern at all--except for a certain consistent conservativism--a general worry about giving the people "too much power."

As the two Commissions for Charter Reform work their schedules into synch, the issue of neighborhood councils is scheduled to be addressed at two meetings in April by the better funded and apparently better organized appointed Commission, and later in May at two meetings to be held by the elected Commission (perhaps not-so-coincidentally) in the 8th and 15th Districts, noted havens of actively participatory citizenries. The 15th District meeting is slated for May 4th in San Pedro, at 6pm, probably at Peck Park. As the issue looms, opinions begin to emerge from these bodies.

Ironically, though, it is City Attorney James Hahn (brother of Janice) who has emerged as the first definitive opinion on the matter. He released a statement (whose real motive may or may not have been the defense of his unified office, which is under attack) that, kowtowing to the secessionist movements, comes out strongly in favor of the creation of neighborhood councils.

Hahn's proposal pursues a 40,000-to-one representative ratio for each elected council member. (This may be contrasted with the current City Council, which represents the people at a rate of 235,000 to one, worst of any major city in America.) However, this is an illusory figure--there would be five council members for each of 20 council districts (five people to collectively represent 200,000, with no further breakdown into smaller localities).

In a move which locates him among the more radical faction of the city government, however, he calls for actual decision-making power for the councils on local issues, whereas most involved in the debate remain in favor of keeping them strictly advisory. He retains the option for the City Council proper to overturn any neighborhood vote with a "supermajority" of 4/5.

San Pedran Jerry Gaines, a member of the Appointed Commission, released a statement on March 16 detailing his opinions on democratic representation below the level of the City Council. His "Council District Community Commissions" are a departure from James Hahn, yet not really any more or less radically democratic. Within each commission, which would correspond with a present Council District, five elected (but segmented internally) seats would be counterbalanced by four appointed (by the powers-that-be) seats. The commissions would start with a trial advisory period followed by an option for designation of actual decision making power to be delegated by the City Council down the road a ways.

Although the elected Commission on a whole seems to be considerably less enthusiastic about decentralization, chairman Edwin Chemerinsky (who was cited by Commission Administrative Director Jeffrey Garfield as the most radical of the "electeds") seems to lean in the general direction of James Hahn and Gaines on the issue. Speaking from "personal views," rather than on behalf of the commission, he voiced the standard concern for the infamous "Not-In-My-Back-Yard-ism": "Neighborhood councils will be blocking things like prisons, LAX expansion, the Alameda Corridor... which obviously are in the best interest of the city as a whole." To require a supermajority to overturn a neigborhood vote, he asserts, would be far too drastic…A simple majority would suffice," he concluded. As to the size of neighborhood councils, he emphasized the necessary correlation between this issue and whether the City Council would be expanded: "the two should be inversely related."

In contrast with these conservative opinions, Janice Hahn believes that the elected neighborhood council is the most important issue in charter reform: "I've never wavered on my belief that the people of the city have supported this movement because they want L.A. Government to be more widely representative. The means of achieving this goal lie in the creation and empowerment of elected neighborhood councils." This Hahn notes that the present split of 35 planning districts might be a convenient mapping of council districts, although it should be noted that the 15th Council District would remain intact with this split. Her concern for the representation of the lower economic classes emerges in her support for salaried council positions. However, she acknowledges the need to retain the City Council's power to overturn neighborhood legislation: "Power must be balanced--if you place some in one spot, you need to balance it somewhere else."

RANDOM LENGTHS NEWS