COUNCIL DELAYS DECISION ON APRIL CHARTER VOTE.

Byline: Patrick McGreevy Daily News Staff Writer

A majority of City Council members balked once again Friday at putting Mayor Richard Riordan's charter reform initiative on the April 8 ballot, saying they needed clarification of a federal judge's order to put the measure on the ballot.

The council members also delayed a closed-door session scheduled Friday to discuss a possible legal response, but indicated in open session that they might challenge the judge's order because it could be interpreted to violate state law by ordering a change in the initiative after petitions were circulated.

``There is a problem in state law that does not allow us to change the petition,'' said Councilwoman Ruth Galanter, who led the 12-1 council majority. ``It doesn't allow Dick Riordan and his buddies to change it either.''

At issue is wording in the mayor's initiative petition that called for a ``citywide'' vote to elect a charter reform commission. U.S. District Judge Mariana Pfaelzer's Dec. 26 order forbids an ``at-large'' election because it would violate the U.S. Voting Rights Act.

The judge ordered the city's attorneys to return to court Tuesday to report on a method of election that complies with federal law, which prohibits an at-large election that would disenfranchise minorities.

Galanter said Pfaelzer's ruling says a citywide election is not allowable but is not clear on how the city can then hold the election without violating state law prohibiting significant changes in initiatives once signatures are collected.

``The court appears to have said that the initiative does not conform to federal law,'' she added. ``We really don't have the option to put the initiative as it was circulated on the ballot because, as it was circulated, it violates federal law.''

The sole opponent to the council's delay was Councilman Joel Wachs, who voted against it.

``You should stop playing games and wasting money and put the darn thing on the ballot, which is inevitable,'' Wachs told his colleagues. ``Go out and debate the merits of it and stop jacking people around.''

Bill Wardlaw, an adviser to Riordan, charged that the council was preparing to defy Pfaelzer's order and ignore the thousands of city residents who signed the initiative petitions.

``Basically, the council action today is an outrageous attempt by the City Council to deny Angelenos the right to vote on their charter,'' Wardlaw said.

Both sides huddled over a 63-page ``memorandum of decision'' issued by Pfaelzer late Friday, preparing for a continuation of the power struggle Monday.

During the council's hearing, City Clerk Mike Carey told the City Council on Friday that he has certified that the petitions containing 304,000 signatures are sufficient to qualify an initiative to create a charter reform commission.

State Sen. Tom Hayden, D-Los Angeles - who is considering running against Riordan in April - then addressed the council, saying he had sought and received from attorney and election-law expert Fred Woocher an opinion that even minor changes in an initiative was against state law.

``I know from long experience that nothing makes voters more incensed than to discover, in the fine print, that they have been misled as to what they have signed,'' Hayden added.

Hayden and council members said Riordan should be required to recirculate a petition that accurately explains how the election would be held.

Studio City attorney and initiative co-sponsor David Fleming, however, said holding an election of commission members by district instead of at-large would not constitute a change in the initiative wording.

He said ``citywide'' is a generic term that means an election held throughout the city, and can reasonably be considered to include elections by council districts throughout the city - such as those now proposed for the charter reform commission.

Attorneys for Fleming and Riordan argued that the initiative will be decided on a citywide basis and said Pfaelzer has cleared the way for the election of the commission members to be done by districts because only such an election would comply with the federal Voting Rights Act.

``It (the council's argument) is something Judge Pfaelzer considered and rejected,'' said Lawrence Barth, an attorney for Riordan.

In her memorandum of decision, Pfaelzer wrote that the city failed to make a case for requiring Riordan to recirculate the petition so that the election issue is clearer.

``If the city is contending that if a citywide election violates the Voting Rights Act the proper remedy is to order the (initiative backers) to circulate a new petition proposing a charter commission by district, the city does not articulate the legal basis for such a remedy,'' Pfaelzer wrote.

She made her decision against an at-large election even though the city argued in court that state law requires an at-large election.

Barth said the City Attorney's Office suggested the language that called for a ``citywide'' election.

The council debate Friday grew rancorous and personal with council members questioning the methods and motives of the mayor and his supporters.

``What we have is somewhat of a crisis precipitated by those who claim they want charter reform on one hand and on the other want to consolidate power in the executive branch of government,'' charged Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas.

Councilwoman Jackie Goldberg said it is not coincidence that the initiative backers, in seeking to change the election method, are getting advice from former Deputy Mayor Mike Keeley, who resigned last year under criticism for leaking a confidential city legal opinion to legal counsel.

``Some people believe the rule of law does not apply to them,'' Goldberg said. ``The rule says you can't change the rules on a petition after people have signed it. I believe this council has an obligation to uphold the rule of law.''

Keeley deferred comment Friday to Wardlaw, who said the attacks on Keeley were a diversionary tactic by the council.

``They are trying to divert the issue from what it really is, which is to try to include Angelenos in determining their form of government,'' Wardlaw said.

Council members have branded the mayor's initiative drive a grab for power.

``If you have enough money you can buy your own commission around here, apparently,'' Galanter said in open session. ``That's not the way the city ought to run. We already have elected representatives - one from each council district.''

The City Council has appointed its own 21-member charter reform commission that will submit recommendations to the council for approval before they can be placed on the ballot.

Riordan and Fleming have argued that an elected commission with the power to submit reforms directly to the voters would take the politics out of the process.

On Friday, Galanter blamed the dispute on Riordan, who she noted is bankrolling the initiative drive with up to $400,000 despite the fact that the council already has appointed an advisory commission on charter reform.

``What we've got is a situation in which the mayor and some of his appointed commissioners sponsored a petition, went out, wrote the petition (and) had the signatures gathered then they discovered there was something wrong with the petition,'' Galanter said.

``And remember, this is the one that the mayor said he felt so strongly about this that the mere fact that the council had already initiated a charter reform process was not good enough because it wasn't his charter reform commission, so he is perfectly willing to pay for the entire effort,'' Galanter said.

Galanter also predicted that the mayor's attorneys will seek to have the federal court order the city to pay the legal expenses in the case.