GELFAND’S WORLD-Our City Council has become a haven for termed-out state legislators and even for some that just like taking a pay raise. After all, the Los Angeles City Council is among the highest paid elected bodies anywhere. Our municipal overlords bring home more than a U.S. Senator, more than most governors, and way more than our state legislators.
It's a perverse incentive that has populated the council chamber with ex-state legislators, and results in pretty much every open seat being contested by the retiring politician's chief of staff. In one upcoming election, we have multiple chiefs of staff vying for the same $181,000 per year sinecure. And by the way, the job comes with a nice pension.
There is a way to change things. It was proposed a few years ago as the "half-off" proposal. It consisted of adding the term "one-half" to the legal definition of a City Councilman's salary, which was at one time fixed at the level of a municipal court judge. Because the Muni courts were merged into the Superior Court a number of years ago, the statutory definition for City Council salaries became equal to the pay of a Superior Court judge. It's a pretty good number even for an experienced trial attorney or retired D.A., but it's an awful lot for a group of elected politicians who are supposed to be able to empathize with residents who live at a much lower income level.
Curiously, the time is now right for such an option, even if it was a little wrong at the time the "half-off" proposal was first made. That's because the City Council is proposing a reform of its own, one that would move the city elections to the same time that we do statewide and national elections. We could hold our preliminary citywide elections in June of even numbered years, and have the runoffs on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November, the way we vote for congressmen, state senators, and presidents.
This would be one way to open city elections to larger turnouts, which have been abysmal in recent years. It's true that some people object to the proposed change, on the grounds that interest in the citywide races will be swamped by the congressional and national campaigns, but the argument seems a bit thin. After all, the current system shows little evidence of voter interest as it is, and the idea that voters couldn't simultaneously pick a congressman and a city council representative on the same day might be taken as a little insulting.
We could introduce the voters to a collection of reform measures which would include changing the election day and cutting City Council salaries.
So what's holding back getting a "half-off" measure on the ballot? The answer is the usual one -- money. Since the measure would require a revision of the city's Charter, it takes about 300,000 petition signatures to get the measure in front of the voters. Of course the members of the City Council could vote to put the salary reduction measure on the ballot, but what do we think the chances of that are?
What's needed is a deep pockets source who could put up around $400,000 to pay the signature gatherers to collect the signatures in the relatively constrained time period that the law requires. Perhaps a wealthy former mayor or a wealthy donor (or his brother) who don't much like Democrats could put up the costs.
Wherever the money comes from, the "half-off" measure would be marketed as part of a broader reform movement that would include the change in municipal election dates.
By the way, this measure can be written so as to leave the current members of the City Council at their present salaries. It can easily be written to apply only to those who have never served on the City Council before. That way, we avoid creating a strong opposition force on the Council itself, and present the measure as working towards a better future.
While we're at it, let's get on with some additional unfinished business. For example, let's deal with our corrupt and unfair system of parking ticket appeals. Let's do a simple ballot initiative which has the advantage that we don't need all of those 300,000 signatures. Maybe 60,000 or so. let's outlaw the current system. You know, the one that sends your appeal to a private company, a company that has a financial interest in turning your appeal down.
And finally, if we could find a more liberal sort of donor for a Charter amendment, then let's finally do a ballot initiative that creates full public financing of City Council and citywide elections. Let's keep it simple. Anybody who wants to participate and fulfills the requirements (not all that easy, by the way) will get a sum of money defined by law, and not one penny more, no matter who the opposition is. If the opposition candidate puts in five million dollars out of his own pocket, you won't get more than the amount defined by law, but the voters can at least get the option of picking a candidate who is not either insanely rich or bought and paid for. You can use your public funds to point out that you are pure at heart and that your opponent is using dirty money to pay for all those mailers.
The way I look at it, even if the system were to be only partly successful, and the L.A. City Council were to consist of 11 publicly funded candidates and 4 self-funded rich guys, we would be way better off than we are at present. Right now, the number of fully publicly funded candidates is zero. It's true that the city has been moving with glacial slowness towards a system of public funding, but it has always been a partial remedy. Things will improve in 2015 as the fraction of public dollars increases, but the wealthy will still have a predominant effect on early campaigning because the folks with the money will be able to donate larger amounts than before. For Los Angeles, it's been a step forward and half a step back. It's long since time for us to take it all the way.
We would have to define a revenue neutral source of income. Maybe we should combine this proposal with the parking ticket reform. Cut the parking ticket fees by 75 percent, and devote all of the remaining parking ticket revenues to funding public financing. That's what I would call a win-win scenario. The people would get not only savings on their parking tickets, they would get a chance to vote for more independent candidates and save money in the bargain.
Over the past dozen years, the City Watch authors have talked and talked about governmental reform. We've exposed how the system works, and we've suggested ways to fix things. It may be an opportune time to start building a real reform movement. It will require a consensus as to what ballot measures to support, and a funding source to pay signature gatherers.
And in terms of unfinished business, there's the transportation mess, the vulnerability of companies and people who connect to the internet, and the economy as a whole. All yet to be accomplished, and all desperately in need of intelligent discussion.
(Bob Gelfand writes on culture and politics for CityWatch. He can be reached at [email protected])
-cw
CityWatch
Vol 12 Issue 103
Pub: Dec 23, 2014
