COUNCIL OPEN TO COMPROMISE : MAJORITY WOULD GIVE UP VETO FOR CITYWIDE VOTE.

Byline: Patrick McGreevy Daily News Staff Writer

A majority of the City Council members said Wednesday they would be willing to relinquish their veto power over a secession election in return for an amendment to the Boland bill requiring the entire city to vote on the secession of any part of Los Angeles.

``That would be acceptable to me,'' said Councilman Mike Hernandez. ``I think it's important that the whole city do vote because the whole city is impacted.''

Hernandez was part of the eight-member council majority that voted May 14 to oppose the Boland legislation because it would take away the city's veto power over a secession drive.

Several council members said at the time that they could not support the bill removing their veto power unless it was amended to require the entire city to vote if any one section wanted to break away.

Nine of the 15 council members said Wednesday they would support the compromise, although some said they would prefer the bill as originally written by Assemblywoman Paula Boland, R-Granada Hills, and others said they would need additional safeguards.

Their comments came two days after Senate President Pro Tem Bill Lockyer, D-Hayward, unveiled a plan to virtually rewrite the controversial bill adding a citywide vote and creating a blue-ribbon commission to study the feasibility of a San Fernando Valley breakaway.

The bill was on today's agenda in Lockyer's powerful Rules Committee, but sources in the capital said late Wednesday that it might be dropped until later.

The original bill by Boland simply removes the City Council's veto power over any secession election. She said Tuesday that its intent to restore the right of self-determination would be gutted by Lockyer's proposals.

Boland also said that because her bill faces possible defeat by the Senate's Democratic majority she would consider a compromise that required a vote by the whole city.

``I think a majority of the council would support the compromise,'' said Councilman Richard Alarcon. ``I think taking away the veto is important. I would prefer that any part of the city wanting to become independent would be able to vote themselves, but if a compromise is the only way anything is going to get passed, the important thing is to remove the veto.''

Council members Ruth Galanter, Mike Feuer, Nate Holden, and Hernandez said themselves or through representatives that they would support a compromise that gives up the council veto while requiring the whole city to vote on any secession drive.

Councilwoman Rita Walters also said such a compromise would be acceptable to her, as long as legislation ``guaranteed'' that a thorough study of the financial impacts of secession are analyzed before the vote.

Feuer voted in May to oppose the Boland bill but supports the compromise proposal, while saying through a spokesman that many other questions remain to be answered before the council changes its formal position.

Alarcon and council members Hal Bernson, Joel Wachs and Marvin Braude said they would support the compromise if it was the only way to get the legislation passed.

``Something's better than nothing,'' said Wachs. ``If the only choice is between the compromise and nothing at all, I would take the compromise.''

Bernson said he would fight any effort to change the bill, but added ``I would support the bill if it came through that way.''

With state legislators still bartering over compromise language, city lobbyist Norman Boyer said he would wait to get firm language before taking the issue back to the council to see if it wants to vote formally to support a compromise bill.

Council members also said they would wait to see what comes out of Sacramento before deciding whether to call a new vote on the legislation.

Council President John Ferraro said the compromise does not go far enough. Ferraro said he would not support the bill unless it was changed so that it does not only apply to Los Angeles.

``I don't think the bill should be leveled at the city of Los Angeles alone,'' Ferraro said.

Councilman Rudy Svorinich said through a spokesman that he would oppose a compromise that required the whole city to vote.

``Why should the whole city vote on what is a local issue?'' asked Barry Glickman, the councilman's chief-of-staff.

Svorinich represents areas of Wilmington and San Pedro where secessionist talk has existed for years.