COUNCIL ELECTIONS WASTE OF TIME, TAXPAYER DOLLARS : WHY INTEREST IN REFORM?

Byline: Joe Gelman

A few months ago, I predicted that ``every L.A. City Council member up for re-election will be returned to office by disgustingly high margins.'' Little did I realize what an understatement that would be.

As it stands, three of the seven council members up for re-election are running unopposed. Like Fidel Castro, council members Jackie Goldberg, Mike Feuer and Richard Alarcon will be the only ones with their names on the ballot in their respective districts.

The other four incumbents have raised so much money from lobbyists and special interest groups that they might as well be declared unopposed, because they are in a financial position to obliterate their cash-starved challengers with little or no effort at all.

So, in the name of honesty and saving taxpayer money, allow me to call for the flat-out cancellation of the coming City Council ``elections,'' except in the 11th Council District, where a number of candidates are legitimately vying to succeed retiring Councilman Marvin Braude.

I make the call only half seriously. But the question really does beg to be asked: What is the point of wasting the electorates' time and the taxpayers' money when an election is an exercise in North Korean-style public relations, where the game is rigged and the outcome is a foregone conclusion?

Not surprisingly, the unchallenged incumbents of L.A.'s politburo view it a little differently than I do. To quote City Councilman Richard Alarcon, who represents northeast sections of the San Fernando Valley: ``I consider this (not having a challenger) a pat on the back from my constituents.''

Really? This councilman views his lack of a challenger as some kind of strong message from his constituents that they really are somehow so thrilled with his work, that not even a single individual could bring him or herself to step forward and challenge him?

Phony elections do not serve the public or the democratic process. But if Alarcon's attitude is any indication, it does serve the egos and delusions of incumbent politicians who are likely to conclude that their unopposed overwhelming re-election signals some kind of massive mandate to continue on with business as usual. An enthusiastic vote for the crusty status quo, if you will.

Yet, if the residents of this great city are so content with their local government, why have well over 100 individuals presented their candidacy for a proposed high-profile commission to reform that very same government?

If the electorate is so satisfied, why is it that every time you turn around, another secessionist movement pops up somewhere in the city?

From San Pedro in the south, to Venice along the central cost, to the San Fernando Valley in the north, citizens are not looking to Richard Alarcon, Jackie Goldberg, Mike Feuer or other members of the City Council for leadership.

On the contrary, they are looking to separate themselves as quickly as possible from that same leadership.

So what is it that explains this contradiction? On the one hand the electorate seems restless and unsatisfied with its local government, yet on the other hand, local incumbent politicians are getting a free ride.

The most obvious explanation is money - cold hard cash.

The way the system is structured, it is virtually impossible to defeat a City Hall incumbent. Sitting council members have an almost insurmountable advantage. They are able to leverage the power of their office, to dole out political favors to connected businesses and special-interest groups, and raise substantial funds in return for those favors, accumulating a massive campaign war chest in the process.

They then use that money to repeatedly drown their districts with slick political direct mail pieces that translate into high name identification and victory at the polls. It is really that simple.

Serious potential challengers with a minimal degree of political sophistication are well aware of this harsh reality, and most, justifiably, don't even bother to run until a council seat is put back in play by a retirement, as in the case of Braude's seat.

Incumbents tough to beat

That explains why incumbent council members are, for all intents and purposes, facing no opposition. It's not because they are doing such a good job, as some would delude themselves into believing. It's because the system is rigged in such a way that it makes it virtually impossible to unseat them, thus deterring serious challengers.

That also explains why well over 100 individuals have decided to run, not for City Council, but for seats on the newly proposed charter reform commission. Because in the case of the proposed reform commission, the system is perceived as being wide open, and anyone who is motivated enough has a real shot of winning, even though the mayor's personally picked candidates will probably enjoy a modest fund-raising advantage.

There is another element at work here as well. City term limits are scheduled to kick in for the first time, four years from now. Those who end up actually winning a seat on the reform commission will then be well-positioned to throw their hats in the ring when the first round of City Council members are term-limited out under the new law and their council seats are put in play.

But that's in the future. In the real world of today, it all translates into four more years of virtually no change at the top of L.A.'s elected city government. If the mayor is re-elected as predicted, the only fresh face at City Hall will be whoever wins the race to fill Braude's seat.

If there is to be change, expect that change to come in a big way only four years from now when the mayor and many council members will be forced out because of term limits. Assuming that the charter reform initiative passes, its recommendations will start taking effect at that time as well. It could truly turn out to be an exciting, volatile and unpredictable period on L.A. politics.

But in the meantime, we are stuck with these phony City Council elections that will produce the exact same entrenched old guard, with their entrenched, outdated philosophies. You know we're in a rut when the only person who even remotely resembles an enlightened outsider at City Hall is the incumbent mayor himself. Riordan deserves our reluctant support in his campaign against Tom Hayden, who would fit right in with the old guard.

So my view is, boycott the City Council elections, other than in the 11th District. Throw their slick direct-mail pieces, which will be arriving shortly in your mailboxes, in the trash immediately. Don't give these unchallenged incumbent council members the mistaken impression that just because they are the only realistic choice, they should assure that you are satisfied with their nonperformance.

Better yet, a more honest approach would be to simply cancel the City Council elections altogether and come back four years from now, when there might be something of substance to vote for.