Monday, 4/7/97
Making the proper decisions for Los Angeles
Charter Amendment 1 is a valid attempt to improve the dismal
voter turnout that characterizes our city elections. The proposal
will give the city council the option to set up mail-in elections,
offering flexibility to Angelenos. The result is likely to be an
increase in voter participation, which moves us a step closer to a
more interactive form of municipal government.
The amendment is also likely to reduce costs by updating and
streamlining the local election process. And, for those voters
frustrated by the lack of comprehensive information in sample
ballots, Amendment 1 will set reasonable deadlines for the
submission of ballot arguments.
The strongest argument against the amendment is the possibility
of stuffing the ballot box through mail fraud. It is a valid
concern, but council members and proponents must take
responsibility in setting up verification for mail-in ballots. We
feel, if properly policed, the problem of mail fraud will be
minimal. Our primary concern is for the development of a more
participatory form of local government. Vote Yes on Charter
Amendment 1.
Charter Amendment 2 is closely related to Amendment 1. A yes
vote for the proposal means offering the same power (i.e. the
option to set up mail-in elections) to the L.A. Board of Education.
By allowing residents more flexibility in voting for board members,
the amendment will give residents a better opportunity to address
issues involving L.A. schools.
This proposal would set up a new pension program for officers of
the Los Angeles Police and Fire Departments. It moves to equalize
treatment of all officers by allowing them pension benefits based
on years of service instead of age.
The proposal also addresses the issue of retention of officers.
An officer who leaves city service prior to retirement will forfeit
the money paid into his or her pension fund. Therefore, those who
are trained at L.A. academies and stations will be inclined to
implement that training here, rather move to outside agencies in
other locales.
The amendment, which would go into effect July 1, is
retroactive. Officers hired after 1980 would have the opportunity
to join the new plan.
Also, the proposal will allow pension plan administrative costs
to be paid from pension fund assets rather than the Los Angeles
general fund, saving the city big bucks (an estimated $25 million
in short-term budgetary savings alone). Vote yes on Amendment
3.
The long title attached to Amendment 4 can be put more
succinctly: "Procedure for Cutting Red Tape." This proposal will
allow the mayor and city council to establish a ceiling for funds
transferred within selected city departments. Once the budget for a
city department is set, the need to transfer money within that
budget, from one account to another, often arises. Amendment 4
retains the mayor’s and council’s system of checks and balances
while eliminating unnecessary, bureaucratic steps. It will help
reduce the cost of operating our local government and allow the
mayor and council to concentrate on more significant issues.
City hall is an administrative building that warehouses too much
unneeded paperwork. A vote for Amendment 4 is a vote to eliminate
waste and promote common sense.
Like Amendment 4, this proposal will help streamline city hall.
It calls for the consolidation of various services and
facilities.
Currently, the mayor and city council can transfer duties to and
from various municipal departments. The system is effective and
exemplifies modern management techniques. Amendment 5 simply
proposes to add the offices of City Administrative Officer, City
Treasurer, and City Clerk to the list of departments whose duties
can be transferred at the discretion of the mayor and council.
Consolidating the duties and facilities of these three offices
will save millions while improving productivity.
Just when you thought we were going to endorse all the ballot
measures, we get to Referendum Ordinance 6. The first thing that
bothers us about the measure is the misleading title: "Limits on
Officeholder Expense Funds." Actually, this measure asks for the
removal of limits placed on city officeholder expense funds by the
passage of Prop 208. In the fall of 1996, Angelenos were
overwhelmingly in favor of Prop 208 and its limits on campaign
finance. There is no reason to overturn the spirit of the state
measure by approving Ordinance 6.
Officeholder accounts are made up of private money, not taxpayer
money, so this is not a taxpayer issue. It is an issue of balanced
politics. These expense funds are often used for re-election and
self-promotion. Our governor’s current expense funds are limited to
$10,000, so it is difficult to reconcile the Council’s request for
$75,000. We’ve said it before: big-money campaign funds lead to
lobbying and special interest, which are often a threat to public
interest.
Although, in 1996, the Daily Bruin opted to endorse the stronger
campaign finance restrictions of Prop 212, the passage of Prop 208
was still a step in the right direction. That step must not be
eliminated here at the local level. By defeating Referendum
Ordinance 6 we can help sustain our national trend toward campaign
finance reform and maintain a better brand of politics for Los
Angeles.
Proposition 7 calls for the continuation of a 3.75 percent
surtax on the city business tax to go toward the funding of city
services. Those services include police, fire and other essential
services. In the mid-1980s, a 7.50 percent surtax was enacted to
meet city expense requirements. In the early 1990s, when the city’s
economy was on an upswing, that surtax was reduced to 3.75 percent.
If voted down, the city will lose an estimated $10 million in
revenue.
For every dollar paid in local business taxes, an additional
3.75 cents is paid as a surtax. This surtax helps to fund key
services for Los Angeles. New state law requires that voters
approve its continuation, and we agree. The costs for individual
businesses are negligible, and city services could use the
support.