CHARTER NEEDS FIX, BUT KEEP OUT ILL `REFORM'.

Byline: Keith Comrie

I am writing this in response to the Daily News editorial published Sept. 15.

I agree that much streamlining and simplification and a variety of reforms in the current charter is highly desirable and I fully support both commissions in this regard.

My recent reports were directed at only two very specific areas of concern that I strongly believe can lead this city down the road to a New York style of local government with its history of corruption, incompetence and inefficiency.

My first concern deals with the proposal to grant the mayor power to dismiss department heads without council review.

The current charter allows department heads to be fired by the mayor without cause. However, it does provide limited checks and balances to prevent arbitrary, capricious and unlawful firings by requiring approval by eight of the 15 council members.

Any mayor can easily get eight votes to remove a department head who should be fired for not doing his or her job.

With most city department budgets slashed by 30 percent in recent years, almost all department heads can be accused of not meeting community needs and are therefore vulnerable to being fired at any time.

As a matter of fact, we have too much turnover now - in the last five years the 17 largest city departments have had 45 people serve as interim or permanent department heads. This has resulted in a huge loss of skills for the city and the disruption of city operations.

Providing the mayor unchecked power to fire department heads will make it impossible to recruit high-caliber professional managers from outside city government. I recently talked to two highly regarded, recently recruited department heads who strongly stated they never would have considered coming to work for the city if the mayor and his staff had unchecked ability to fire them.

My second concern deals with the proposal to have the budget and research staff, the city administrative officer (CAO), report only to the mayor and to eliminate such staff support for the council.

This is a costly proposal that will create unnecessary duplication of effort. In New York, the mayor has his own budget and research staff, the council has its budget and research staff, because of the lack of public information the voters created an independent Budget Office, and there is a Financial Control Board as a result of the city bankruptcy.

In other words, four offices compared to one in Los Angeles. Although it is very difficult to get information from New York, it appears they have over 400 people involved in this work as compared to 100 in Los Angeles.

New York is noted for a lack of prudent checks and balances found in reformed western cities. Its bankruptcy resulted from overly centralized power. This is not the kind of government that the taxpayers want in Los Angeles.

This is why I continue to support the professional, nonpartisan model adopted by western states. Why should we revert to the combative, partisan and corrupt model that reformers were wise enough to eliminate?

Our goal instead should be to have a system that promotes objectively, independence, integrity, professionalism and a clear public view of all facts.

We all have a responsibility to speak out against any proposal which would distract this great city from achieving its full potential.