Comments
ACCORDING TO LIZ - For another bite at the ballot, let’s takes a look at the six proposed amendments to the Los Angeles City Charter.
Yup, what was fresh and new in 2000 is now looking a little frayed around the edges. A full overhaul is in the works but that will take time – and lots and lots of political bickering.
In the meantime, the City is calling for some tweaks to keep operations moving smoothly. However, not all of these are in the best interest of Angelenos.
Charter Amendment DD would establish an Independent Redistricting Commission for the City. Desperately needed following the debacle the City-appointed commission recently made of the Council District reapportionment process.
What the City really needs is to split up the current 15 fiefdoms into 30 or 40 to reduce individual Councilmembers’ power and make the districts smaller, more manageable, and more accountable to the people.
Although I am not too fond of the particular specifics of this amendment, I am endorsing it in that pretty much any change is better than what we faced these past few years.
The cost to the taxpayers is pretty minimal, and doing nothing now could have more significant fiscal impacts.
So, this gets a YES vote from me.
Charter Amendment LL would establish an Independent Redistricting Commission to redraw Board of Education district lines every ten years in the Angeles Unified School District.
See the foregoing; however, the cost would be reimbursed by the LAUSD.
And, again, YES.
Charter Amendment HH would amend the City Charter to make various changes and clarifications regarding City governance, appointments, and elections, including the following:
- Allow a City Council member to serve on the board of a joint powers authority if they do not receive compensation for that service
- Clarify City Council voting rules regarding disapproval of a proposed action
- Clarify the City Controller’s auditing authority to access the records and personnel of contractors and subcontractors that receive or manage City funds
- Expand the City Attorney’s subpoena power to include the authority to subpoena witnesses, administer oaths and affirmations, and require the production of records in the course of investigating violations of State or local law, but not include the power to investigate City offices, departments, officers, or employees
- Delete obsolete language regarding City election dates
- Clarify signature gathering timeframes and deadlines for initiative petitions
- Provide a process and timeframe for City offices and departments to report on the impacts of an ordinance proposed by an initiative or referendum petition before City Council decides to adopt or repeal the ordinance, or submit it to the voters
- Allow a proponent to withdraw a referendum petition
- Require that a City board or commission appointee file financial disclosure statements with the Ethics Commission and submit the disclosures to the City Council before the appointee can be confirmed by the City Council
- Require that two members of the Board of Harbor Commissioners reside within the Harbor area, one from the community of San Pedro and one from the community of Wilmington
- Establish a method for appointing a temporary executive director of the Office of Public Accountability in case of a vacancy
- Establish a method for appointing a temporary general manager of a pension or retirement system in case of a vacancy.
The above is a mishmash of housekeeping items, listed in full instead of the synopsized version on the ballot, so you can decide if any are radical enough to deserve your further research and, perhaps, your vote in opposition.
Personally, I don’t have any serious issues, so I’m giving a YES.
Charter Amendment II would amend the City Charter to clarify that the El Pueblo Monument and the Zoo are park property.
And clarify that departments may sell merchandise to support City operations.
And include gender identity in non-discrimination rules applicable to employment by the City.
And clarify the Board of Airport Commissioners’ authority to establish fees, rules, and regulations.
And make other changes to City administration and operations.
As you can see, this is a grab-bag of disparate items, and those four enumerated on the ballot are from a list of thirteen i.e. the “other changes” in the full language of the amendment.
So much so that the City’s Chief Legislative Analyst can’t even guess at the costs. Some are certainly acceptable updates but others are definitely questionable.
The no-brainers should be separated out and passed as administrative updates but the rest, especially ones with financial ‘benefits’ must be better analyzed and presented to the voters as separate issues for consideration. Especially given that the costs and resources to generate proposed income may exceed that income.
To avoid potential problems and costs relating to at least of few of the favored thirteen, I’m voting NO to send kit-and-caboodle back to the drawing board.Nope, nope, NO.
Charter Amendment ER would amend the City Charter to establish a minimum annual budget for the City Ethics Commission. It would also increase the Commission’s authority over spending decisions and hiring matters, and allow them to obtain outside counsel in limited circumstances.
Furthermore, it imposes additional qualification requirements on Commission members, and requires the City Council to hold a public hearing on Commission proposals. Best of all, it increases penalties for violations of City laws.
Yes, it’s another list, but these proposals are substantially related and are undeniably in the best interest of all Angelenos.
There is a very small cost involved for the first major improvement in ethics oversight for the City since the Ethics Commission was established. Personally, I believe it should go much further, especially considering how ethically-challenged too many of our elected officials and City employees have been and are.
Please join me in voting YES.
Charter Amendment FF would allow the City to amend the Charter to allow peace officers employed by the Police, Airports, Harbor, and Recreation and Parks Departments to transfer membership and service from the Los Angeles City Employees’ Retirement System (LACERS) to the Los Angeles Fire and Police Pension Plan (LAFPP), and requires the City to pay associated costs, including refunds to certain Airports and Police Department members for prior transfers.
Huh?
To be clear, it's not the City paying, it’s your tax dollars.
Why? It should be up to whomever is pushing this to happen to figure out how to pay for it without any cost to the taxpayer.
That’s a big fat NO from me.
Before you vote, always pay attention to the ramifications and don’t assume that the City is acting in your best interest.
You may disagree with me on some of these but, ultimately, the most important point is that you do get out and vote.
(Liz Amsden is a contributor to CityWatch and an activist from Northeast Los Angeles with opinions on much of what goes on in our lives. She has written extensively on the City's budget and services as well as her many other interests and passions. In her real life she works on budgets for film and television where fiction can rarely be as strange as the truth of living in today's world.)
