What Have We Done Los Angeles?

What Have We Done Los Angeles?
By Donna Connolly

Not only did the November 7th election have Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats in DC celebrating, it generated some celebrations closer to home.

The passage of Proposition R–the so-called Ethics Reform measure–gave our LA City Council members an additional four years in office by raising term limits from 2 four-year terms to 3 four-year terms (from 8 years to 12).

Despite attempts by opponents such as City Controller Laura Chick, City Attorney Rockard Delgadillo, community activist David Hernandez, et al and the great effort on the part of the Daily News–the measure passed with 59% of the votes. Any opposition was completely eclipsed by the flood of misleading mailers and ads paid for by the financial contributions of wealthy businesses and lobbyists who had the most to gain from the passage of this measure.

The funding for the “NO on Prop. R” campaign was sadly dwarfed by the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent to deceive the voters into thinking this proposition was in their best interest. In light of the Abramoff scandal in Congress and a political climate rife with corruption, it was easy to convince voters that this proposition would protect them from corruption at home. But has it?

In the last week, the LA City Council members have given themselves a 15% increase in pay, and have awarded $150 million of bond money to a California investment bank with ties to lobbyists to build a new police headquarters. According to a recent article in the Daily News,
Council members concede that L.A. taxpayers might have gotten a better deal had other firms been able to compete for the bonds. But they claim they wanted to keep the contract local, and they insist that their decision had nothing to do with the fact that it benefits one of their lobbyist pals (article dated 11/12/06).
But all is not lost. There is still hope and that hope lies in the courts. According to the state constitution, a ballot initiative cannot have more than one unrelated issue. When two or more unrelated issues are included in one ballot proposition, the voters have to decide to accept both or to reject both. For this reason, a judge in October ruled that Proposition R was unconstitutional because it combined term limits and ethics reform in one initiative and ordered it off the November ballot. Unfortunately, an appellate judge overruled that order and it was put back on.

Community activist, David Hernandez has already begun preparations to file a new lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of the proposition. Since a judge has already ruled it unconstitutional, victory is in our grasp.

But lawsuits are expensive, and this is a grassroots effort on the part of one lone crusader. In a recent article in the Daily News, David was christened the “San Fernando Valley gadfly”, and encouraged to keep up the fight. We should all give David our seal of approval and echo their endorsement; “We wish Hernandez well. The City Council's arrogance continues to grow, and he's now L.A.'s best hope for reining it in (Daily News article dated 11/12/06).”