4 MORE YEARS: PRICELESS CITY COUNCIL TERM-LIMIT SHIFT: $1 MILLION, MORE INFLUENCE.

Byline: BETH BARRETT Staff Writer

It could be called Los Angeles City Council members' ``$1 million term.''

That's at least how much each member would get -- in everything from escalating salaries and perks to increased funding for their districts -- under a fast-tracked proposal of ethics reforms that would tack four more years onto their eight-year tenures.

Using ethics reform to enhance their pay has worked in the past for the council. That's how the council got its pay tied to those of Superior Court judges back in the early 1990s, making them America's highest-paid municipal officials.

The latest proposal, which is likely going to be put on the November ballot, would make them among the longest-tenured elected officials in large cities that use term limits.

Backers of the plan say it's needed to provide greater institutional knowledge and experience at City Hall. But some experts say it also could simply let council members amass more power, influence and wealth with less accountability.

``One of our concerns is these political fiefdoms will become more entrenched. These are already the best-paid, best-compensated local officials in the nation,'' said Kris Vosburgh, the Los Angeles-based executive director of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

``It's so difficult to defeat a sitting city council member. ... The advantages of term limits is it requires a reshuffling of the deck, bringing in new blood, new excitement.

``The argument (for more terms) is that you lose institutional knowledge, and that these are sophisticated jobs. But we think that's probably a good thing because they learn how to manipulate the system for their own personal advantage, rather than to use their offices for the benefit of the public.''

Whatever the result, there is no question that council members would reap increasingly lucrative benefits and wield power over millions of taxpayer dollars.

Under the ethics reform package approved by voters in 1990, council members' salaries were tied to those of judges -- a measure that has sent their salaries soaring as judges have commanded increasingly high pay in order to retain them at a time when lawyers are earning huge incomes.

Under that law, council members are up for a 1.03 percent retroactive raise from February, and an 8.5 percent increase Jan. 1.

With the boosts, they will be paid $163,373 a year -- up 80 percent from just 13 years ago and far outpacing the region's cost of living.

And then there are the perks that include a car of choice, free gas, a free cell phone and excellent health benefits. Only Councilman Jack Weiss uses his own car, but he still fills up on city gas.

Beyond what they get personally, council members also have vast sums of public money to spend at their discretion -- funds that allow them to look after key constituencies and fend off re-election challenges.

Key to that is the $1 million or so that each council member has for his or her staff and office expenses. Under the fiscal 2007 city budget, the council's overall allocation rose 8.6 percent to $22.7 million -- or $1.5 million each.

And council members also have pots of money worth millions of dollars reserved for them scattered throughout the budget.

This year, members will see their individual slices of the ``general city purposes'' fund double to $100,000 for discretionary spending on constituent services and pet projects.

The council also has other pots of money to draw from, including the Real Property Trust Funds, now valued at more than $2.3 million, that is made up of half the net proceeds of most city land sold in their districts, as well as franchise fees from oil pipelines.

About one-third of those funds are restricted to street and sidewalk improvements in council members' districts, but the remainder can be used more broadly on district projects and services, so long as the full council agrees.

There also is more than $4 million in the Street Furniture Revenue Fund -- a pot filled through the city's contract with CBS/Decaux that generates revenue from ads on such things as transit shelters and kiosks.

The money must be spent on transit-related projects in their districts, but can include anything from busing kids to summer camps and dial-a-ride programs to street landscape projects.

Then there's the Council Civic Fund that in the last fiscal year accumulated $10,000 to $30,000 for each council member to spend on arts and culture in their district.

Attorney George Kieffer, a prominent civic and business leader who chaired the commission that rewrote the City Charter adopted by voters in 1999, said council wealth, influence and term limits are not linked.

```What is the appropriate pay for council members?' is one legitimate question. `What limits do we want to place on voters to elect their representatives?' is another very different question. `How does (the) council allocate dollars to the community?' is another.

``People who support limiting council members to three terms rather than two are saying that they want the right to vote for or against someone for a third term rather than have that option taken away by law.''

And Kieffer said council members actually could be fortified against special-interest corruption by a third term.

``There is actually a very strong argument that by limiting terms, we have strengthened the special interests. This is certainly the case in Sacramento. If a legislator can establish a strong base in his district, he can say `no' to the special interests far more easily than if he or she is worried about needing the special-interest support for the next office, for which he does not have a base.''

Without a term-limit extension, nearly half the council's current 15 members would be termed out in 2009 -- Ed Reyes, Dennis Zine, Jack Weiss, Jan Perry, Eric Garcetti and Janice Hahn.

Councilman Bill Rosendahl would be up that year for his second term.

Those running for re-election next year -- and who would be in their final term if the proposal is rejected -- include Wendy Greuel, Tom LaBonge, Tony Cardenas, Bernard Parks and Greig Smith.

Because Councilmen Herb Wesson and Jose Huizar were chosen in special elections, they would be eligible to stay in office for a total of 10 years under the current law.

Council members, fearful of a voter backlash if they appear to be seeking more time on the job, emphasize that the plan was advanced by the League of Women Voters and the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce.

Council president Garcetti, 35, minimized the risks of power becoming concentrated in council members who serve three terms.

``L.A. is a town where you can't build up a political machine, where there's 88 cities in the county,'' Garcetti said.

Garcetti said administrative, bureaucratic and other processes move so slowly that a mixed-use project at Hollywood and Vine that began when he took office in 2001 likely will be completed by the end of his eight years.

And Garcetti, who said he favors a third, four-year term and gives away about a quarter of his salary to charity, said ``general city purposes'' funds are spent ``on the community ... not spent on ourselves.''

He noted that his district also has fewer funds than other districts to dip into -- for instance, it's not near landfills and doesn't have city land that's being sold that provides some districts extra money.

A trash recycling and transfer station in Huizar's district, for example, has accumulated $768,752 that Huizar can use -- with council approval -- for community services.

Council members defended the work they do and the benefits they get, noting that an extra term would do little to give them extra power.

``We probably work harder than any other council in the country,'' said Zine, a former Los Angeles Police Department police sergeant and Police Protective League director.

Council members can't hold other jobs or take honorariums for speaking or other engagements, and it's expensive to live in L.A., he said.

``How do you have influence on $160,000 a year?'' he asked.

Zine, 59, donates more than $25,000 each year from his salary to nonprofits in his district, and says he doesn't know whether he'll accept future pay raises.

Alex Padilla, who made the leap from a deputy to former state Assemblyman Tony Cardenas to a council member representing the Northeast Valley at age 26, said he supports an extra term because of the job's learning curve.

Padilla, now 33 and winner of the state Senate primary in a heavily Democratic district, said it took him nearly four years to learn how to get things done effectively at City Hall.

``I fully recognize I wouldn't be here if not for term limits,'' Padilla said. ``I was learning as I went and not really on top of my game for a few years.''

Council members said it's experience that counts and even if they themselves are not re-elected, their salaries and perks would go to someone else.

LaBonge, 52, who said he started out with the city in the 1970s as a $17,000-a-year council aide, said the issue is who's ``experienced, dedicated and knowledgable'' about the city.

He said he took a pay cut of about $20,000 to quit his job as the Department of Water and Power's director of community relations to join the council.

``It's not about a job; it's about a city,'' LaBonge said. ``It does take a long time to get things done.''

Greuel, who said she's a proponent of term limits, said voters should decide whether to make the incremental change.

``The issue is whether it will be eight or 12 years -- not 30 to 40 years.''

beth.barrett(at)dailynews.com

[phone]