CENTER OF POWER PADILLA'S PROPOSAL FOR NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCILS IS A PRIME EXAMPLE OF THE CITY COUNCIL'S REFUSAL TO GIVE UP ANY OF ITS POWER.

Byline: Earl Ofari Hutchinson Local View

LOS Angeles City Council President Alex Padilla has come up with a proposal he thinks will take a little steam out of the secession drives in San Fernando Valley, the Harbor Area and Hollywood.

He wants the council to set up a catch-all committee on neighborhoods and schools to find ways to improve citizen access to city government.

The heart of the proposal is to jump-start the much-touted, and much-forgotten, neighborhood councils. These were supposed to be the city officials' pacification weapon to quell Los Angeles residents' skyrocketing rage over indifference to their needs and problems and the remoteness of City Council members, city officials and agencies.

There is not the slightest hint that Padilla's proposal will shake loose the vise-like grip that City Council members have on funding and decision-making power in governmental affairs. The neighborhood councils are a prime example of the City Council's refusal to give up any of its power.

The neighborhood panels are - and were never meant to be anything other than - advisory.

City Council members decide who sits on them and what their duties are. Panelists have absolutely no say over planning and spending on neighborhood services.

This does not mean neighborhood councils won't do some good. They will give residents a sounding board to discuss issues and air grievances. They will provide members their first experience with real political involvement. They could enable a council member to tune into the problems and needs of his constituents.

And, if a council member is willing to listen closely and even take action on recommendations by neighborhood council representatives, this would do much to break down the often impersonal and foreboding wall between city officials and neighborhood residents.

But the fact remains that all hard decisions about spending, public services, and land use are tightly controlled by the mayor and City Council members.

They want it no other way. They argue that as elected officials they have the know-how, savvy and expertise to make all major decisions involving city issues and interface with agencies and departments.

Their message is always, ``Trust us to do what's right for the city. If you don't like the job we're doing, then vote us out and put someone in who'll do a better job.''

This is part truth and part self-serving malarkey. In an era of wealth, special-interest groups, grossly ballooning campaign costs and media star power, incumbents know full well that they hold nearly all of the cards in a political race. Short of being convicted and jailed for criminal malfeasance, it is virtually impossible to knock an elected Los Angeles official out of office.

It is also true that decisions on issues such as taxes, zoning, budgets, and development projects are often complex and time-consuming. Most residents are ill-equipped to deal with them.

Yet this is not an impossible obstacle that dooms neighborhood councils to be nothing more than ceremonial prattle and debate klatches.

A solid and effective neighborhood council would elect representatives with limited power to make decisions on neighborhood services, park and street improvements, and land use.

The problem of lack of time, management and legal skills of the representatives could be overcome by employing trained consultants to advise neighborhood council members on spending priorities, budget management, zoning laws and requirements, commercial development, police deployment and street, sewer and lighting improvements.

City Council members would then be mandated to actively solicit their advice on city budget issues, capital improvement projects, arts and public services.

The final approval on all major projects would still lay with the mayor and City Council. This is a fail-safe mechanism to ensure that neighborhood councils do not sink into partisan personal and political bickering. This would paralyze government and further balkanize the city.

The irony is that the one city official who called for neighborhood councils with teeth was then the city attorney, James Hahn.

Hahn would have created councils that gave citizens the authority to make decisions on land use, parks and arts funding. His plan went nowhere.

Now Hahn is mayor, it remains to be seen how good his memory is, and if he is willing to dust off his old plan, put the muscle of his office behind it and pressure the City Council to implement a reasonable facsimile of it.

If not, Padilla's vague - and probably ineffectual - proposal will likely be the best the City Council comes up with to counter the disgust and alienation Los Angeles residents feel toward city government.

Just as likely, it will do little to reassure residents that the City Council means to make them a real partner in decision-making. It is even less likely to derail a vote on Valley secession that could hit the ballot as early as November 2002.

CAPTION(S):

3 photos

Photo:

(1 -- color) no caption (Los Angeles)

(2 -- color) Alex Padilla's vague - and probably ineffectual - proposal will likely be the best the City Council comes up with

(3 -- color) The one city official who called for neighborhood councils with teeth was the then-city attorney, James Hahn