COUNCIL OKS PAYING TO DEFEND PROP. R OUTSIDE FIRM TO GET AT LEAST $26,000 IN TERM-LIMITS LAWSUIT.

Byline: KERRY CAVANAUGH Staff Writer

The City Council approved paying at least $26,000 to an outside law firm to defend the city in a lawsuit challenging the term limits/ethics reform measure on the Nov. 7 ballot.

The decision Tuesday angered some residents who complained that the City Council used taxpayer dollars to defend a measure that was fast-tracked through the process with inadequate community input or review by the Ethics Commission.

``I just think this process was very flawed. Some of us do support term limits (extensions), but we can't in good conscience support this,'' activist Monica Harmon told the City Council.

Council members have argued that voters should have a chance to consider Proposition R, which would allow City Council members to serve a third four-year term and enact a number of campaign finance and lobbyist disclosure requirements.

The council voted 9-2 to hire Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP to represent the city. Officials said outside counsel was needed because City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo's office needed help and expertise quickly.

Councilmen Jack Weiss and Bill Rosendahl opposed the contract, and council members Tom LaBonge, Jan Perry, Ed Reyes and Greig Smith were absent.

Weiss said he didn't see the need to seek outside help on the case.

``I am completely confident that the Los Angeles city attorney is capable of going to court and arguing city law and California law,'' he said.

The $26,000 is the first installment of the legal bill. Delgadillo's office plans to seek more money to cover the cost of the court challenge.

Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw has expertise in election law. Former Assembly speaker and mayoral candidate Robert Hertzberg is a partner with the firm, although he's not working on the case.

In July, Hertzberg was the featured speaker on term limits, redistricting and ethics reform at a Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce Pancakes and Politics roundtable.

The chamber and the League of Women Voters proposed Proposition R and have filed legal documents in support of the limits/ethics reform package.

Proposition R has been challenged by groups that argue that it violates the state constitution by combining more than one issue in a ballot measure.

A Los Angeles Superior Court judge agreed that Prop. R was illegal and took it off the ballot. An appellate court put Prop. R back on the ballot. The appeals court has set an Oct. 3 hearing to consider whether the measure is legal.

Whatever the verdict, both sides are expected to appeal the case to the California Supreme Court, which would likely raise the cost of outside counsel.

kerry.cavanaugh(at)dailynews.com

[phone]