BOLAND BLASTS LOCKYER FOR ABANDONING BILL.

Byline: Paul Hefner Daily News Sacramento Bureau

Former Assemblywoman Paula Boland on Wednesday condemned state Senate President Pro Tem Bill Lockyer for sidestepping his commitment to help lift the Los Angeles City Council's veto power over secession drives.

The Granada Hills Republican - the first to propose eliminating the veto from state law - accused Lockyer of creating ``smoke and mirror obstacles'' to cover his political retreat.

After abandoning his own legislation on the issue earlier this week, Lockyer may feel free to work from behind the scenes to kill a similar proposal pending in the Senate, Boland said.

``If the bill goes down, people would be naive to think that anyone besides Bill Lockyer killed it,'' Boland said.

A spokesman for the Hayward Democrat rejected Boland's assertions.

``As usual, she's wrong about everything,'' said Sandy Harrison, Lockyer's press secretary.

But Boland's criticism was just one sign of the growing pressure on Lockyer to more fully explain why he chose to abruptly wash his hands of the issue.

``A lot of people are saying, `was Lockyer playing games earlier in the year?' or `did he sell out in the last couple of days?' '' said Richard Close, co-chair of Valley Voters Organized Towards Empowerment. ``We have more questions than answers.''

Lockyer and Boland clashed sharply over the issue last year, when Lockyer orchestrated the defeat of Boland's legislation. Their feud faded somewhat in January, when Lockyer met with Close and other San Fernando Valley activists.

Lockyer proposed a bill replacing the council's veto power with a vote of residents citywide on any secession drive. But he backed away Monday, citing criticism of his efforts from both sides of the dispute.

He said earlier that he made his decision after he came under heavy criticism from Sen. Diane Watson, D-Los Angeles, who has denounced eliminating the veto as opening the door to a breakup of the city.

There was some sympathy among Valley leaders for Lockyer's position.

``He was kind of beat up on the bill,'' said Harry Coleman, a director of Valley VOTE. ``He was kind of beat up in his own caucus. He was in a no-win situation.''

But Watson's opposition was hardly new. She and Lockyer had sparred openly at a committee hearing earlier this year.

``I don't see what has changed in the last week to change his position,'' said Close, who added that his group was asking to meet with Lockyer directly on the issue.

``I'm being barraged with people who think he either lied or was being two-faced,'' Close said. ``Without more information, I can't give pro-Lockyer answers to the charges being made against him.''

Boland also pointed out that Watson had long been opposed to having Lockyer involved in a Los Angeles issue.

``To blame it on her now doesn't hold water,'' Boland said. ``It isn't fooling me a single bit.''

She said that Lockyer - by virtue of his power as president pro tem - can still have considerable influence over whether AB62, the bill by Tom McClintock, R-Granada Hills, and Robert Hertzberg, D-Van Nuys, gains approval in the Senate. The bill, which also would replace the veto with a citywide vote, was approved by the Assembly 74-1.

The bill will face its first Senate test sometime in the next few weeks. Lockyer has called the measure ``defective'' but has pledged to stay out of the fight.

But he also sided with Watson for the first time in saying that if the veto is erased from state law, that new policy should apply statewide. Earlier, he resisted a proposal to amend his own bill to apply statewide.

``It's just a way to try to throw smoke-and-mirror obstacles in the way,'' Boland said. ``It's just a means of trying to kill it.''

Through his spokesman, Lockyer issued a statement rejecting Boland's claims.

``Unfortunately, Senator Watson and I have been quite antagonistic on this bill,'' he said. ``It's ridiculous to think we could be conspirators.''

But Boland said the proof will be in whether Senate members remain consistent in supporting a bill that lifts the council veto.

``If he truly stays out of it, the votes will be there,'' she said. ``If not, we'll know who to blame.''

CAPTION(S):

Photo

PHOTO Paula Boland

Not fooled ``a single bit''