Democratic committee urging Weiss to take on Cooley in '04. (Politics).

HE may only have been in office for 21 months, but Westside L.A. City Councilman Jack Weiss is already being pushed for higher office.

The L.A. County Democratic Central Committee recently took a non-binding vote to encourage Weiss, a former federal prosecutor, to challenge Republican District Attorney Steve Cooley when he runs for re-election next year.

"The office of District Attorney is now being held by a conservative Republican who has shut down the environmental crimes unit and declined to prosecute hate crimes," said Central Committee chair Eric Bauman, who put Weiss' name before the committee at its April 8 meeting.

"The (Democratic Party) leadership here in Los Angeles is seeking a strong Democrat with law enforcement background and experience as an elected official and community leader," Bauman said.

Weiss, who has been in the news for his complaints about how Los Angeles is not adequately prepared for a terrorist attack, said "it would be premature to comment on any future plans at this time."

Through a spokesman, Cooley declined comment.

City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo has surfaced as another potential challenger to Cooley, although Delgadillo is not believed to be pursuing the spot. He long has been rumored to be a mayoral candidate or a successor to state Attorney General Bill Lockyer.

Former Westside Councilman Mike Feuer's name has also come up. But Feuer, who is now an attorney with the L.A. office of Morrison & Foerster, lost his bid for City Attorney to Delgadillo two years ago. That makes him less viable in a countywide race.

The committee vote has provided fuel for those who suspect Weiss is not genuinely interested in serving as a councilman. But Weiss defended his job performance, noting that he is involved in district-related issues like the West-wood Village business improvement district and preserving historic buildings on Kelton Avenue.

If Weiss were to enter the race, he would face an uphill battle. While Cooley has not been especially popular in legal circles and has made some enemies among elected officials with his zealous pursuit of public corruption, he still brings the powers of incumbency.

This has led some to speculate that the move to put Weiss on the ballot is more about garnering countywide recognition for a more serious challenge in 2008.

Numbers Game

It sounds like a simple question: "What's the budget shortfall?" But at last week's county budget presentation, it was difficult to get a straight answer.

Days before the Monday press conference, county officials referred to a March projection of the county's 2003-04 general fund shortfall from County Administrative Officer David Janssen, which was $205 million.

But just hours before the press conference, a press release referred to the total county budget of $16.5 billion and then stated: "...cuts necessitated by an $804 million shortfall will be felt by the public in many areas."

Puzzled reporters asked Janssen to explain the higher number.

"That $205 million figure is still there," Janssen said. "It is the amount of the general fund shortfall. But we felt that it was important to give the public a sense of the overall problem that needs to be addressed, and that's not just a shortfall of revenues."

Janssen said the $205 million did not include "cost absorptions" such as workers' compensation, higher retiree benefits and other unanticipated expenses that county departments had to grapple with.

The $804 million represents the total budget shortfall, said Janssen, which includes $175 million in health department cuts and another $197 million in county funds to offset declining federal assistance.

All this could be rendered moot by another number -- $472 million. That's the amount of vehicle license fee dollars that the state could redirect from county coffers to fix its own budget mess. This contingency, Janssen said, was not accounted for in any of the aforementioned budget numbers.

Staff reporter Howard Fine can be reached by phone at [phone], ext. 227, or by email at [e-mail].